Here we go again.

The text does not refer to crime, self-defense or a "my-home-is-my-castle"-situation.

The mentioning of a militia clearly specifies it to war-like circumstances.

The Militias of yesteryear, evolved into the National Guard that we have today.

since they can be federalized and be sent to Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Defense_Force

"well regulated" at the time, and in this context meant 'well functioning'-

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/WellRegulatedinold%20literature.pdf

[div class='excerpt']In Item 1, Anne Newport Royall commented in 1822 that Huntsville, Alabama was becoming quite civilized and prosperous, with a “fine fire engine” and a “well regulated company”. I suppose one could make the case that the firefighters were especially subject to rules and laws, but the passage is more coherent if read, “They have a very fine fire engine, and a properly operating company.”

William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible.

Secondly, let's look at the preamble to the Bill of Rights-

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights was intended as a 'the government shall not' document- "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"- not a 'the people can' document. Rights aren't limited by the bill of rights; rather the scope of protections of certain rights are set. If the Bill of Rights were a listing of all a person's rights, there would be no need for the ninth and tenth amendments ("The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." and "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." respectively.)

And finally, let's look at the second amendment itself-

[div class='excerpt']A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who does the right belong to? The militia? No, the people. See US v. Verdugo-Urquirdez for the salient definition of 'the people'.

Grammatically this can be broken down into two clauses- a prefatory clause and an operative clause. Similar wording can be found in other writing of the time, though it's fallen out of favor these days. For comparison, see Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20- "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject..". That construction- '{reason}, {statement}' exists today, but we usually swap the clauses- "I'm going to the supermarket, I'm completely out of soda." or we add in a 'because' or 'since'- "Since I'm completely out of soda, I'm going to the supermarket." or "I'm going to the supermarket because I'm completely out of soda."

I know that complex English is lost in today's twitter-ful and facebook-y terseness, but it really does pay to read older documents when you want to analyze what a sentence from that era actually means.

So with the point from the first section, the second section in mind, and rearranging the clauses per the third would yield a modern restatement of the second amendment as-

"Because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security, the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed."

or

"The government shall not interfere with the right of the people to be armed because a well functioning militia is necessary to state security."

Nothing in either of those statements says that arms are only for militia service, rather the ability to raise an effective militia is why protecting the right to be armed is protected. Since we know from the preamble (and the 9th/10th amendment) that the bill of rights is not exhaustive, we have to look outside the bill of rights itself to see if the founding fathers expected this right to extend beyond militia service.

State analogues of the second amendment that were adopted in the same timeframe give a clue-

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/WhatStateConstitutionsTeach.htm (sections rearranged by me)

[div class='excerpt']The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"

Arizona and Washington: These states were among the last to be admitted to the Union.* Their right to arms language is identical: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Illinois: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."** (footnotes removed)

So from analagous documents created by many of the same founding fathers or their peers, the individual right unconnected to militia service is fairly well laid out.

* Admittedly, not analogous in time to the others, but still demonstrates the point.
** same

You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.&quot or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, as so to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.&quot

Both the Heller and McDonald decision shed more light on the subject.

So, if I understand correctly, the right to keep and bear arms was never limited to militias and later on widened to expressly include self-defence.

It's still weird, the 2nd amendment refering to militias when they no longer exist/are no longer needed.

It was a given, never expressly enumerated, but there nonetheless.

You can see that all throughout our history. Here's an excerpt from the debates surrounding the 14th amendment:

[div class='excerpt']Will it be contended, sir, at this day, that any State has the power to subvert or impair the natural and personal rights of the citizen?

As citizens of the United States they have equal right to protection, and to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Senator James Nye, Nevada, Feb 28, 1866

eta: Just to be clear- one of the founding principles of our government is that all rights are inherent in the people. All power of the government flows from the consent of the people. The state doesn't dole out rights and protections. It's a bottom-up structure, not a top-down.

state operated ones like Vermont's. The founders did not want a standing army during times of peace. If we dismantle the empire and set up an army similar to Switzerland's, we would be a better off country.

that type of prefatory statement is the Second Amendment. The First Amendment doesn't say "A free press being necessary to a well functioning Democracy the right of the people to speak freely shall not be abridged", etc. Nor any other. Just the Second. But the new legal theory that after almost two hundred years of jurisprudence now finds an 'individual' right to bear arms is essentially as you've stated it, above.

See the Rhode Island constitution quote above.

And your 'new legal theory' isn't new. It was the norm until bliss ninnies in the 1960's took it upon themselves to try to reinterpret it.

that under your interpretation, the entire first part "A well regulated militia being necessary..." is pure surplussage. The Framers could have saved themselves a lot of trouble and ink by merely stating that 'the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed', as they did in the other nine amendments part of the Bill of Rights. What purpose did the Framers have in mind in adding those "useless" words?

The fact that different State Constitutions have gone further isn't new or terribly illuminating - the entire principle is that a State cannot make a law that is more restrictive of rights than the Constiution, but a State may (and many have) make a right broader than that set forth in the Constitution.

If I said, "I'm completely out of soda, I think I'm going to go grocery shopping." -- would you think I'm only buying soda? Do stores only sell soda?

Or.. "Pizza being useful for late-night study sessions, the right to grow and harvest tomatoes shall not be infringed." -- are tomatoes only to be used for pizza sauce?

If you're delving into the minds of the framers as authoritative, then you should look at the writings of the time. You'll find that they expected people to defend themselves with arms, not just use them for militias.

The weren't prescient. They didn't foresee that the language would change. The phrasing was common at the time.

You might as well say, "Chaucer could have saved himself some trouble had he written in modern english.' when you mean, he could have saved *you* some confusion.

They also used 'well-regulated' to mean well functioning. Our modern usage of that word doesn't change the usage it enjoyed when used in 1791.

You are the one that brought up semantics, trying to cast doubt on the phrasing, but in a modern context and usage.

When I demonstrated that in historical context there was no confusion? You punt.

That's okay, you're not the first to slink away.

Let's look at the words in question:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The first part of the qualifying phrase implies he words "since" and "therefore": Since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Otherwise, it has no use and no identifiable purpose.

Now, let's look at your examples:

If I said, "I'm completely out of soda, I think I'm going to go grocery shopping." -- would you think I'm only buying soda? Do stores only sell soda?

Here, the construction is essentially the same as the Second A." Since I'm completely out of soda, therefore I think I'm going to go grocery shopping." The only fact you can glean with certainty from that is that you're going grocery shopping to buy some more soda.

The second example is confused: "Pizza being useful for late-night study sessions, the right to grow and harvest tomatoes shall not be infringed." -- are tomatoes only to be used for pizza sauce?

This statement is a complete non sequitur. Since pizza is useful for late-night study sessions, therefore what ?

In addition, the entire discussion about 'well regulated' is a moot point. Whether or not it meant "functioning correctly" as some scholars believe it did in the Eighteenth Century or not really adds nothing to the discussion. The 2A would mean exactly the same if it simply said "A militia being necessary...".

The point is that all attempts to force the plain language must by definition not take into account the existence of the qualifier "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". The fact that the Framers "... expected people to defend themselves with arms, not just use them for militias..." as you state would clearly have supported the construction of an Amendment that simply stated that 'The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But it didn't.

You seem to think that the bill of rights is exhaustive. That if it isn't explicitly spelled out in the bill of rights, it isn't a right.

That is not an interpretation that any court has supported, and flies in the face of the ninth and tenth amendments.

[div class='excerpt']Here, the construction is essentially the same as the Second A." Since I'm completely out of soda, therefore I think I'm going to go grocery shopping." The only fact you can glean with certainty from that is that you're going grocery shopping to buy some more soda.

But it does not set the scope of what I may buy, nor what stores sell. Just as the second amendment does not set the scope of the right protected. It just explains why the right is protected.

[div class='excerpt']The second example is confused: "Pizza being useful for late-night study sessions, the right to grow and harvest tomatoes shall not be infringed." -- are tomatoes only to be used for pizza sauce?

This statement is a complete non sequitur. Since pizza is useful for late-night study sessions, therefore what ?

Pizza is the why, tomatoes is the essential component of that purpose to be protected. Just as in the second amendment.

[div class='excerpt']The point is that all attempts to force the plain language must by definition not take into account the existence of the qualifier "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...". The fact that the Framers "... expected people to defend themselves with arms, not just use them for militias..." as you state would clearly have supported the construction of an Amendment that simply stated that 'The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". But it didn't.

Again, you're trying to shoehorn modern english sensibilities into an 18th century document. They weren't fortune tellers- they had no idea that 200+ years later people would chide them for their language choices based on what english writers would do today for clarity.

If you look at their writings of the time, you can see it clearly-

[div class='excerpt']We established however some, although not all its {self-government} important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
-Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

Conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.
-Roger Sherman, House debate, 1790

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them....
-Writings of Thomas Paine, 1894

As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives only moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks.
-Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
-Samuel Adams

"Just as the second amendment does not set the scope of the right protected. It just explains why the right is protected."

How does this language not set the scope of the 2A? Why is this the only right so qualified in the Bill of Rights, if not specifically for limiting the scope of the 2A?

It's as simple as that.

Re-read the preamble to the Bill of Rights:

[div class='excerpt']The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

The Bill of Rights is not a 'people can' document. It is a 'government cannot' document. That's fundamental to interpreting the document. It is a set of 'declaratory and restrictive clauses' to the government, designed to 'prevent misconstruction or abuse' of its (the government) power.

There are many rights that we have that are not explicit- you won't find the right to travel in any of our founding documents. Nor will you find the presumption of innocence until a trier of fact has so judged.

Your argument demonstrates the reason why some were hesitant to even ratify the bill of rights in the first place. They were afraid that because *some* rights were being enumerated, future governments would feel free to abridge others. Others, perhaps naively, argued that the government would never do such a thing because the government was not granted the explicit power to do so.

That's why we have the ninth and tenth amendments- as a safety valve for those who worried about the above scenario.

you haven't anwered my question. Generalities about how the Framers were hesitant to ratify the Bill of Rights and the functions of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments are interesting, but what we have here a very specific example of one right being specifically qualified by the Framers. It is indeed a 'declaratory and restrictive' clause, restricting the right to bear arms as related to the existence of a Militia. No other right is so qualified. How do you justify your assertion that this specific qualification was not intended to serve a specific purpose?

it was written. It is a restriction on the government insofar as it might otherwise permit the people to bear arms, but the restriction is a limited one, in that it permits the bearing of arms for the purpose of having a militia. You will find that much of the sentiment for this was because of opposition to having a standing army - many of the Framers preferred a citizen militia.

You're still stuck on the Bill of Rights as 'granting' or 'permitting' something.

*bzzt* try again.

expansive definition from. All laws inherently permit some things while restricting others. The Bill of Rights is, before anything else, a law. It also permits some things while prohibiting others. There are no unlimited rights, at least not in our legal system.

.. that sprung from its philosophical underpinnings.

Your homework? The Declaration of Independence, to start.

[div class='excerpt']We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And more recently, any constitutional law textbook.

Plenty of cases to ponder as well. Look at US v Cruikshank, Presser v Illinois..

US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.&quot

Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms&quot

Seriously, I have to wonder where you got the idea that rights are 'permitted' via law.

[div class='excerpt']There are no unlimited rights, at least not in our legal system.

And if you ever do find someone claiming that there are unlimited rights, you be sure to talk to them.

The powers that be need to understand that THAT is an essential check and balance.

from rioters and arsonists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreatown,_Los_Angeles#Los_Angeles_Riots_of_1992

I wouldn't call it 'no longer in existence' or 'no longer needed'.

If you fully admit you're both confused and not familiar with US law, you might want to refrain from deciding what is "very clear" from the text, particularly when what you describe is not clear at all.

For one thing, "well regulated" in this context refers to said militias being regular and orderly, i.e. well trained and effective. It has nothing to do with "regulation" of the kind you're thinking about. Also, there's no place which says that that is the sole purpose of bearing arms; a claim which goes against both the unanimous view of the Supreme Court and 200+ years of jurisprudence on the subject.

Thirdly, you probably hear about the US' very well organized militias all the time. They're just not referred to by that title. They are, instead, referred to almost exclusively by their official legal name: the National Guard.

Many have.

Me? I joined the military and got my firearms training there. Also met a great-looking blonde at the enlisted men's club in Pearl Harbor. 34 years later we're still heading out to the firing range together.

If all else fails, watch "Top Shot" and get some tips....

reality show. Not a shooting show.

to the target ranges they use. It looks like a blast!

the "reality TV" drama. I love the guns part and the shooting part. the range is amazing!

The state can create them if there's a need (like a foreign invasion, occupation, or civil war).

Of course, this has been unnecessary for over 150 years. Ideally they would be used to support and fight with the US's Federal National Guard, if there was ever a need. Ever since 1903, there's also the "reserve militia," which consists of all men 17 to 45 years old (essentially, this would be the draft, and provides justification for it).

A big problem with militias, and why they're frowned upon, is the use of them as personal armies. This was a problem during the US Civil War. I don't know the specifics, but I believe they can only be formed officially by the state (to prevent them from being abused or turned against their own country).

Current day groups that call themselves "militias" are actually usually criminal organizations within the US. They usually keep to themselves (and are usually massive meth-heads).

The need for a well-regulated militia is the REASON that government is prohibited from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, which was already understood to exist at the time the Constitution was written.

Where are the well-regulated militias that text refers to?

Every state has its own militia, as does the federal government. I live in California. Following are links to the LEGAL definitions of the US federal and California state militias.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130

Note that in both cases the "militia" basically consists of all able-bodied citizens. The organized militias consist of the National Guard and Naval reserve. The unorganized militia is everyone.

Last edited Sun Mar 18, 2012, 07:07 PM - Edit history (1)

you can't pull stuff out of thin air and make it part of the constitution.

but, with that said ... then "some auhority" would be "my own authority" ...

as I am the "authority of myself" within the confines of society. I am one of society and have a right to help society determine how to govern itself.

on edit: I am a well-regulated milita of one.

Not for you, apparently.

Please explain how "the right of the people" = "only a militia". We've been waiting for someone to clear up this grammatical contortion for a very... long... time. Perhaps a foreigner can manage it for us....

who have no concept of the 2A (probably unique in the world) and that includes our northern neighbor.

Stevens lost. His opinion carries no legal weight whatsoever.

you'll know that today's dissent may well be the majority opinion tomorrow (see Citizens United)

say that I expect Citizens United to be overturned by a future court.

overturned my amendment first. Either way, the sooner the better.

the Stevens dissent bother you at all as a Democrat?

nominated by Ford. The GOP has moved that far in 35 years. It bothers me when liberals act like conservatives on some issues.

jurisprudence is Republican or conservative in nature? Don't make me laugh. He was one of the liberal stalwarts on the court for decades. Especially compared to Scalia.

Just wondering what progressives are doing praising Scalia and demonizing Stevens. Seems like priorities are out of order.

He was nominated by Ford, that is historical fact. Scalia is a reactionary, not a conservative. Stevens seemed like a liberal stalwart because he was surrounded by reactionary assholes. When 60 Minutes asked him if he was still a Republican, he did not answer either way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens

Do you find that opinion illegitimate because Scalia wrote it?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-jones/

Explain, please....

I judge each issue individually. I'm not a robot. On this issue Scalia was correct and Stevens wasn't.

He even starts out assuming the premise he rails against in the rest of his dissent.

[div class='excerpt']The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals.

The dissent is filled with unsupported assertions ("it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes.&quot

He then re-argues Miller, which was a contrived case where the plantiff wasn't even present.

LOL!

because you have nothing.

The Militia; the State, and the people.

Only one of them has the right to keep and bear arms.





Also, Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 13, Section 311

n/t

So discrimination based on sex is okay. Gotcha.

If Zimmerman had been a women, Trayvon Martin would likely still be alive.

So then Zimmerman wasn't discriminating, either. He was playing the odds.




If Trayvon Martin had been a woman, Trayvon Martin would likely still be alive, too.

When you are wrong, apologies don't bring the victim back when you've shot them playing judge, jury, and executioner. And, a biased one at that.

reverse sexism at its worst. you have one-upped yourself, Hoyt.

cause he's on the morally correct side. Anything goes there.

injury by commenting to quit wasting their time.

So, I learned. I no longer waste their time.



Free Speech cuts both ways. And, we have all the time in the world to try to explain and educate our fellow DUers.


Good Luck to us all.

The second amendment was intended to prevent the federal government from disarming militias. At the time, questions about standing armies versus militias were a significant issue, and that's why the purpose of the second amendment was stated quite clearly in its preamble. Of course, nowadays we have a standing army, the whole issue of disarming militias is basically moot, so the second amendment is, or at least should be, a historical irrelevancy, kind of like the third amendment, which prevents quartering of troops in private homes during peacetime.

What you need to understand about proponents of the second amendment is that the vast majority of them are right-wingers who neither know nor care about the intent or proper interpretation of the second amendment. They are loony types who carry loaded guns to political rallies and fantasize about the day that they get to shoot down bad guys and protect "freedom" from the forces of tyranny with their little home arsenal. To put it mildly, the "gun rights" movement in the US is not big on intellectualism or nuance -- they like their guns, and don't care much about the consequences in terms of violence and public safety.

And, since we are currently saddled with one of the most conservative supreme courts in recent memory, we are predictably getting a stream of cases that are decided on ideological grounds. One of these cases is Heller, a 5-4 decision with only conservative justices in the majority, where the court decided to overturn previous precedent and ruled that 2A preserved an individual right to bear arms not connected to a militia.

Hopefully, Obama will win re-election, and will have the opportunity to appoint a progressive justice or two, and sanity will return to the bench. Until then, we are stuck with the expanded gun rights interpretation of 2A and a bunch of other unpleasant right-wing rulings.

Hmm, who to believe-some anonymous keyboard commando or someone who edited the Harvard Law Review and lectured on law at the University
of Chicago? I know who I'm going with...

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1kV5SUkry

after a fait accompli by a RW majority on the Court. I doubt that Obama actually believes that for a second.

Obama made a political decision to leave gun control alone. Just like he made a political decision to oppose gay marriage and instead support civil unions. And he made a political decision not to prosecute war crimes under Bush. Etc. He takes a lot of heat on DU for these and other compromises he has made. But the reality is that politicians cannot be ideologically pure on all issues.

In a more candid moment, he did point out that the "gun rights" movement, along with religious fundamentalism and anti-immigration feelings, is propelled by bitterness over economic conditions. As for constitutional scholars that are actually acting as constitutional scholars, we need look no further than the Supreme Court, which is split 5-4 on ideological lines on this issue, your side being the side of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts.

In NY State during a prison strike.

The 3rd is protecting everybody in this country, whether they realize it or not.

have you? Please explain it in your own words. Please explain why his dissent matters. If your answer is he is a liberal (he calls himself a judicial conservative) or Democrat nominated by a Democrat (he was a Republican nominated by Jerry Ford.)

DanTex wrote:
One of these cases is Heller, a 5-4 decision with only conservative justices in the majority, where the court decided to overturn previous precedent and ruled that 2A preserved an individual right to bear arms not connected to a militia.

you just have to come to grips with the fact that a lot of Americans care more about this one right than any other. Advocates of sensible gun control get shouted down by the vocal and wealthy minority of gun owners, even among Democratic circles.

Just look at the supposed liberals here in lockstep with a Scalia decision. That doesn't happen too often, unless we're talking about our precious killing machines.

Be specific.

But no, I don't hold my breath over it...

...is the fact only you and a few others keep flogging that dead horse despite the overwhelming majority opinion that it is an individual right in this country. Truly amazing actually..

I doubt it.

Kinda doesn't make any sense.

The PEOPLE are the militia. In US Code, all able-bodied males ages 17-45 are automatically part of the militia, but there is no LIMIT on age.

Instead of inspecting the 2nd Amendment for ways to restrict the RIGHT you should be inspecting the body of The Constitution for a hint of power granted to the government to even contemplate the personal arms of the private citizen.

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers and the government -- established by the Constitution -- only possesses the specific powers granted to it by the people. Those interests that the people have never surrendered are retained by the people.

To read the 2nd Amendment as imparting conditions and qualifications on the right means you believe that the people surrendered to government power to dictate upon their personal property.

And that is profoundly incorrect and injurious to the rights of the citizen.

Your belief is precisely why the Federalists argued so vehemently against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

As the Federalists argued in #84, because the government can only exercise the limited powers granted to it, "why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" They thought adding a bill of rights was dangerous and absurd because such a list would only compile, "various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted . . . " The Federalists feared that no matter how the provisions were worded people would assume that the right flows from the enumeration and invent powers to restrain rights. Which is precisely what you are doing!

The citizen's of the USA don't possess the right to keep and bear arms because of a certain interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, we have the right because no power was ever granted to government to impact in any fashion, the personal arms of the private citizen. Neither the simple passage of time, our elevated society nor our modern "enlightenment" has altered that fact.