BF2S Forums Court Reviewing the Second Amendment in DC

Parker wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Based on the information that I have now received from RAIMIUS, I am all the more convinced that the 2nd amendment is about allowing the militia to sufficiently prepare themselves for a future conflict according to their designated role, and not about providing handguns for self defense for all americans.

there arent any true militias here anymore....at least not in the terms you are thinking.

what we now call militias are people that own A LOT of land, have minimal education, and have a fucking ton of firearms/destructive devices.

I agree. When I think about militias, I think of some weirdos in camouflage that were to thick to make it into the real military, and try to compensate that by owning a ridiculously high number of firearms. They run around in the woods with their buddies and play soldiers. The michigan militia comes to mind.

But according to the law that RAIMIUS quoted, everyone between the ages of 17 and 45 is automatically a member of the "unorganized" militia, unless they are in the national guard.

The question with regard to the second amendment then would be: if those in the national guard qualify as "organized", and the rest as "unorganized", do the unorganized militias still count as "well regulated" according to the definition of the 2nd amendment ? And would they therefore qualify to bear arms ?

boy, america sure is a weird country...

Turquoise wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I hope common sense prevails here...   Isn't it pretty obvious that handgun bans are useless, when D.C. is the murder capital of the country?

I hope common sense prevails here...  Isn't it pretty obvious the right to bear arms is useless, when the US is the murder capital of the western world?

If you think guns alone lead to more violence, you're quite wrong.  Canada and Switzerland have more guns per person than we do.  They have a fraction of our crime rates.

It's wealth disparity that leads to crime.  We have some of the worst wealth disparity in the western world, so that's really what you should attack us about.

In Switzerland you are trained to use your gun. Outside of people who have done service (which is obligatory in Switzerland) there is no possession of firearms. Furthermore, I don't think you can legally buy ammo in Switzerland.

The US does not have this same draft system that we have set in place, and thus has a lot less security than we do. Chances are that the proportion of trained people having firearms in Switzerland is about the same ration of rednecks owning guns in the USA.

We regulate who gets into the army, and who doesn't. You have to pass a couple of tests etc. And only officers get hand guns.

Any questions?

-konfusion

konfusion wrote:

In Switzerland you are trained to use your gun. Outside of people who have done service (which is obligatory in Switzerland) there is no possession of firearms. Furthermore, I don't think you can legally buy ammo in Switzerland.

-konfusion

Wrong and wrong...at least according to http://www.guncite.com/swiss_gun_law.html

B.Schuss wrote:

do the unorganized militias still count as "well regulated" according to the definition of the 2nd amendment ? And would they therefore qualify to bear arms ?

Basing an argument off the militia clause (which I do not)--if one accepts that the common usage of "well regulated" in the late 1700s meant "to function well," then yes, the common citizen does have the right.  From the research I have done, this appears to be widely accepted among those who study the history of word usage.  Colonial codes usually included regulations for all members of the militia (usually the males between 18 and 45) on the equipment they were required to have.  Firearms and ammunition were included in the required items.  Also, there are several quotes from delegates at the constitutional convention and other founding statesmen calling for all citizens to be armed. 


IMO, the right applies to "the people" AKA the common citizen--thus individuals.  The specific phrase is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  States and the federal government are not refered to as "the people" in the Bill of Rights.  It does not make sense that the phrase "the people" would mean something different in other amendments.

It forbids certain firearms.  Much like many US laws (NFA items, the (defunct) AWB, local AWBs, etc.)

Yes, Switzerland has gun laws...your point?

I'm basing most of my info off of the previously cited translation and this page: http://www.guncite.com/tpgswiss.html

If you have more current or complete information, I would appreciate it.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-03-19 17:48:26)

RAIMIUS wrote:

Basing an argument off the militia clause (which I do not)--if one accepts that the common usage of "well regulated" in the late 1700s meant "to function well," then yes, the common citizen does have the right.  From the research I have done, this appears to be widely accepted among those who study the history of word usage.  Colonial codes usually included regulations for all members of the militia (usually the males between 18 and 45) on the equipment they were required to have.  Firearms and ammunition were included in the required items.  Also, there are several quotes from delegates at the constitutional convention and other founding statesmen calling for all citizens to be armed. 


IMO, the right applies to "the people" AKA the common citizen--thus individuals.  The specific phrase is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."  States and the federal government are not refered to as "the people" in the Bill of Rights.  It does not make sense that the phrase "the people" would mean something different in other amendments.

the problem I see with the current case is that - as far as I know - the SC really doesn't have the power to throw out the 2nd amendment anyway. All it can do is take a part of the Bill of Rights that is more than 200 years old, and try to determine wether it has any implication on present-day legislation.

The confusing part about this whole issue for me is that there is already gun control legislation in place today, which some say is a direct violation of the 2nd amendment. And then there is also the issue of State vs. Federal Legislation.

Another aspect that fascinates me is the "literal meaning" vs. "context interpretation" thing. What's more important: the actual text, and the wording/phrasing/syntax, or the interpretation with regard to historic context ?

and finally: can a law that is over 200 years old even be transported into modern times in the first place, and still hold the same meaning that it held when it was created ? I mean, most codified law has been adapted and redrawn over time to reflect changes in cultural, ethical or political views. Why should the BoR / Constitution be above that ? Isn't that what amendments were created for in the first place ?

Most of that is beyond the scope of the SC, unfortunately.
As I said, I simply hope they make a clear, very specific ruling that leaves as little room for interpretation as possible.

B.Schuss wrote:

and finally: can a law that is over 200 years old even be transported into modern times in the first place, and still hold the same meaning that it held when it was created ? I mean, most codified law has been adapted and redrawn over time to reflect changes in cultural, ethical or political views. Why should the BoR / Constitution be above that ? Isn't that what amendments were created for in the first place ?

Magna Carta, 1215 ( Just short of 800 years old)
NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

United States Bill of Rights
No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.


Some principles and insights are recycled nearly verbatum down through the ages.

Other than the shiny toys & technology, is a modern person's role & responsibilities really that much different than someone alive in an ancient Athenian Democracy?

(We've been doing the copy/paste since the Athenians/Greeks/Romans 2000 years ago... and they borrowed alot of it from the Mesopotamians & Egyptians of 5000 years ago)

Last edited by rdx-fx (2008-03-20 13:56:53)