Author Topic: US Second Amendment  (Read 1088 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline E. B. Korcz Forrester

    ~ live and let live!

  • New Member
  • **
  • -165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 44
US Second Amendment
« on: June 21, 2017, 22:12:22 »

I'd love to go through all 149 pages of the debate, but I unfortunately don't have the time right now. Before I share my position, I'd like to make a few disclosures: I'm a pacifist who, paradoxically, is in the midst of joining the Naval Reserve in Public Relations--the idea of being a spokesperson and speaking on behalf of a defence institution that's inclusive and strong is very appealing to me--though I intend to eventually switch to part-time Legal Officer (currently in law school).

 You may have imagined that, being a pacifist, I'm quite against the circulation of arms--legal or otherwise. I understand this topic isn't intended to apply to the United States (considering it's in the "Canadian Politics" board), but I think a discussion of misconceptions in the United States are necessary. One of this misconceptions is that gun rights allow for armed citizens to oppose a tyrannical government and that that was the intention of the second amendment to the United States Constitution. Thus, below, I have reproduced a post I made on another forum; it was a reply to a second amendment advocate who believed in that anti-tyranny check. I don't think that amendment actually intended for arms to be widely circulated beyond a state-maintained National Guard.

He wrote:
Quote
This is when someone brings up "Well Regulated Militia", failing to realize that "Well Regulated" means in good working order, and "Militia" Means "every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)" as per US Law, and each of those free able bodied citizens were to provide their own weapons for the defense of the nation against enemies foreign and domestic.

The reply I wrote:
Quote
Sources? I don't believe this interpretation is correct. I will take the originalist / original intent approach for the purpose of this debate (in other words, I'm assuming the role of devil's advocate; I actually don't resort to original intent often). Second Amendment scholar Dr. Chris Bogus wrote in 1997, for the University of California at Davis Law Review, on the original intent concerning that amendment——and he surveyed the history surrounding the meaning of "militia"——in his article "the Hidden History of the Second Amendment." "Well-regulated" does not simply mean "good working order;" Professor Bogus wrote of statutes in Georgia in 1755 and 1757 which mandated that plantation owners perform regular patrols to keep slaves in check; these bodies were regulated by the state, which appointed commissioned officers. The purpose of these patrols, as will be seen, were to defend plantations against uprisings; and, as will be seen, the drafting and subsequent ratification of the second amendment had nothing to do with tyranny per se.

Its drafter, it appears, inserted the clause to appease one state in particular——Virginia. These militias were designed to mitigate and prevent slave insurrection / uprising, which was a vivid fear among plantation owners. These owners were a minority by well-accepted numbers, in Virginia and in parts of other slave states. Virginia, much like other southern states, feared that a federalism would infringe on their ability to maintain these slave-taming militias, and that a central authority would disarm them as part of some abolitionist aspiration.

Virginia's approval, as the drafters observed, was instrumental to ratification, and absent its approval, the union would have failed to materialize at the time that it did. Virginia was the locus of the Antifederalism pulse——in particular, Virginian politician and lawyer Patrick Henry, who apparently conceived of the "states' right" expression——, and much of the fear of scaled-back states' rights came from Virginia and its southern neighbors. Federalist James Madison, then, in order to appease Antifederalists like Patrick Henry and his constituents, drafted the Second Amendment and inserted the dependent clause "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [...]" (Notice, as I have emphasized, the word "state;" this is further evidence that this very much had to do with states' rights as Professor Bogus argued).

In opening line of his examination of the Second Amendment, Professor Bogus wrote:
"This Article challenges the insurrectionist model [the insurrectionist model = the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is for armed citizens to fight tyranny]. The Second Amendment was not enacted to provide a check on government tyranny; rather, it was written to assure the Southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South's principal instrument of slave control. In effect, the Second Amendment supplemented the slavery compromise made at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia and obliquely codified in other constitutional provisions."

As I inserted in brackets, the insurrectionist model has been around for quite some time; many have argued, and repeated, that the purpose of the amendment was to empower and arm citizens against a government that has become tyrannical, thereby implanting the seeds of a revolution——without an armed body, they argue, an uprising against tyranny is impossible. As Dr. Bogus tried to articulate in his piece, that was not the original intent of its drafter and ratifiers.

That reply is over two years old; I have yet to receive those sources.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 22:24:56 by Lex Justitia »

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 222,476
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,991
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2017, 23:04:25 »
Quote from: Lex Justina
  I'm a pacifist who, paradoxically, is in the midst of joining the Naval Reserve

So you're essentially a fraud?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2017, 23:35:08 »

...  I'd like to make a few disclosures: I'm a pacifist who, paradoxically, is in the midst of joining the Naval Reserve in Public Relations--the idea of being a spokesperson and speaking on behalf of a defence institution that's inclusive and strong is very appealing to me--though I intend to eventually switch to part-time Legal Officer (currently in law school).

As a former legal officer I'd just like to remind you that one of the areas of law that legal officers practice is "operational law" which includes analysing and advising on targeting. In short you must make an evaluation as to whether a particular form of application of force is being applied in a legally sound manner.

In my humble opinion that is more than an intellectually detached exercise and someone who is a true pacifist will either be incapable of doing the job (considering that the consequence of approving the application of force will probably lead to the death or maiming of individuals), or, alternatively, will be lead them to make a call that is too restrictive and thus denying the use of force in situations where it is perfectly legal and thereby putting our own forces at heightened risk.

If you are truly a pacifist (and I don't want to question your veracity here) then I think that any role within the CF is probably contrary to your fundamental belief system. I'm glad that you see the paradox but I think that you need to think through very carefully as to why you think that being a pacifist and being in the military (albeit not in direct combat roles) aren't mutually exclusive.

Good luck with that.

:cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Kat Stevens

    beth am dyrnu braf yn y gwddf?

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 194,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,371
  • that's how we roll in redneck land
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2017, 23:43:42 »
Even though it's taking a trip down a rabbit hole, I'll just say this, with my lack of all that fancy book learnin'.  The second amendment says this:
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.
 Note, it says "the people", not "the people we think are pretty okay". Nothing in it about squashing slave rebellions being that militias raison d'être either. It's one pretty straightforward sentence to me. Unless somewhere there's a book of amendments to the amendments entitled "And What We Meant By That Is..." out there somewhere, there's little room for wigglage there.  But I don't give a rats rectum about US gun laws, I live in a country where it's ridiculously complicated to own an AR-15 because of the way it looks.
Apparently, a "USUAL SUSPECT"

“In peace there's nothing so becomes a man as modest stillness and humility; but when the blast of war blows in our ears, then imitate the action of the tiger; stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood, disguise fair nature with hard-favor'd rage.”

 Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 107,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #4 on: June 22, 2017, 00:20:55 »
Even though it's taking a trip down a rabbit hole, I'll just say this, with my lack of all that fancy book learnin'.  The second amendment says this:
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.
 Note, it says "the people", not "the people we think are pretty okay". Nothing in it about squashing slave rebellions being that militias raison d'être either. It's one pretty straightforward sentence to me. Unless somewhere there's a book of amendments to the amendments entitled "And What We Meant By That Is..." out there somewhere, there's little room for wigglage there.  But I don't give a rats rectum about US gun laws, I live in a country where it's ridiculously complicated to own an AR-15 because of the way it looks.
Indeed. I thought that we had collectively made a decision sometime ago that this thread would be focussed on Canadian gun control issues, in order to avoid disappearing down the US gun control rabbit hole. I don't think the US situation informs Canada very much, either from a legal framework or societial attitude towards firearms point of view.

Offline E. B. Korcz Forrester

    ~ live and let live!

  • New Member
  • **
  • -165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 44
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2017, 02:49:56 »
As a former legal officer I'd just like to remind you that one of the areas of law that legal officers practice is "operational law" which includes analysing and advising on targeting. In short you must make an evaluation as to whether a particular form of application of force is being applied in a legally sound manner.

In my humble opinion that is more than an intellectually detached exercise and someone who is a true pacifist will either be incapable of doing the job (considering that the consequence of approving the application of force will probably lead to the death or maiming of individuals), or, alternatively, will be lead them to make a call that is too restrictive and thus denying the use of force in situations where it is perfectly legal and thereby putting our own forces at heightened risk.

If you are truly a pacifist (and I don't want to question your veracity here) then I think that any role within the CF is probably contrary to your fundamental belief system. I'm glad that you see the paradox but I think that you need to think through very carefully as to why you think that being a pacifist and being in the military (albeit not in direct combat roles) aren't mutually exclusive.

Good luck with that.

:cheers:

Thank you for the insight; it has confirmed one of my anticipations, namely, that legal officers would deal with the application of force, rules of engagement, etc. I also understand that operational law will be part of the training regime as it will be applied in practice. However, in my civilian occupation, I am intending on postgraduate studies in conflict of laws (otherwise known as private international law), or, as a second choice (if there's no academic supervisor available), air and space law. As a legal officer, I was intending to use that expertise from my civilian occupation to develop on maritime law, particularly where it intersects with private international law, and to deal with impending disagreements in the Canadian Arctic while representing Canada's interests using private international law. The scholarship will be useful in developing strategies in the face of disputes with, at least, Russia and the United States over Canada's Arctic.

I think those disputes are inevitable. With the warming of the Canadian Arctic (making it more permeable and, in turn, easily navigable), there will be increases in economic activity in the region, including things like exploration by foreign governments and even their private contractors. Canada's federal government should be preparing its diplomatic corp for foreign government-mediated issues; and both the defence and justice departments should be preparing to advise it, and the military, for Arctic disputes that turn legal.

It's a bit amusing too. For so long, when the arctic was covered in ice shelf, there was little interest over Canada's north, but now that it has been warming and the climate opened the door to new possibilities in commerce, foreign governments are suddenly interested and willing to go on daring probes; adventurism that can turn awry if neither side is careful and meticulous.

As for my use of "paradoxically," I don't actually think they are mutually exclusive (I made the utterance in jest). Much in the same way, I don't think there are pacifists in the absolutist sense; I don't imagine there is anyone with agency and average sensibilities who opposes the use of force in response to an unprovoked threat—be it from another person or some animal in predatory mode. I had a professor who told me of his grandfather, a WWII codebreaker who was, privatively, a pacifist but working patriotically for the military to decipher enemy communications; he often made light of the paradox to his wife and friends in the latter years of his life but never doubted his choice. I feel I am on the same boat; I am merely making light, but acknowledge that the stakes are high.

Quote
You'll make a great PAO / LegO;  actually caring about details is for chumps.

Oh c'mon, is the dismissive tone really necessary? I don't think forgoing details on a topic on these unaffiliated boards is an accurate gauge for aptitude in a detail-oriented environment as PR and legal. Being on these boards, needless to say, is not part of either mandate. Let's be sensible, friend.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2017, 03:59:55 by Lex Justitia »

Offline Lightguns

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • I live for trout and deer
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2017, 06:56:51 »
I couldn't agree more.

Many more decades ago then I would like to remember/admit to I took on a case under the then existing seizure laws where a gun dealer/museum operator had three weapons seized by the RCMP: a semiautomatic Indian FN 1A1; a US M2 Carbine converted to semi automatic only; and various receiver parts of a Thompson submachine gun which had also been converted to semi automatic.

The crowns argument was that each of these could be converted to selective full automatic fire (in the case of the Thompson by pretty much getting another full auto Thompson and substituting the parts.

Luckily I had interviewed the RCMP witnesses more than the crown had and with them together with my own witnesses was able to convince the rural Manitoba judge that the conversions that the RCMP suggested would pretty well work on many of the standard civilian semi automatic rifles that you could buy openly in the market. The only real difference between the civilian models and the army ones was the military appearance of them and not the ease of conversion or down range effects.

We won that one (I reiterated a rural Manitoba judge) and luckily the crown lost sight of the case during the Christmas holidays and forgot to appeal so we did get all three of them all released.

I'm still firmly convinced that the RCMP decisions on what is and isn't allowed is based almost solely on the appearance of the respective firearms. There seems to be precious little science/engineering behind it.

:cheers:

Would have a title for that case, so I read up on it?
Done, 34 years, 43 days complete, got's me damn pension!

Offline Lightguns

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 25,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • I live for trout and deer
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2017, 07:04:56 »
Thank you for the insight; it has confirmed one of my anticipations, namely, that legal officers would deal with the application of force, rules of engagement, etc. I also understand that operational law will be part of the training regime as it will be applied in practice. However, in my civilian occupation, I am intending on postgraduate studies in conflict of laws (otherwise known as private international law), or, as a second choice (if there's no academic supervisor available), air and space law. As a legal officer, I was intending to use that expertise from my civilian occupation to develop on maritime law, particularly where it intersects with private international law, and to deal with impending disagreements in the Canadian Arctic while representing Canada's interests using private international law. The scholarship will be useful in developing strategies in the face of disputes with, at least, Russia and the United States over Canada's Arctic.

I think those disputes are inevitable. With the warming of the Canadian Arctic (making it more permeable and, in turn, easily navigable), there will be increases in economic activity in the region, including things like exploration by foreign governments and even their private contractors. Canada's federal government should be preparing its diplomatic corp for foreign government-mediated issues; and both the defence and justice departments should be preparing to advise it, and the military, for Arctic disputes that turn legal.

It's a bit amusing too. For so long, when the arctic was covered in ice shelf, there was little interest over Canada's north, but now that it has been warming and the climate opened the door to new possibilities in commerce, foreign governments are suddenly interested and willing to go on daring probes; adventurism that can turn awry if neither side is careful and meticulous.

As for my use of "paradoxically," I don't actually think they are mutually exclusive (I made the utterance in jest). Much in the same way, I don't think there are pacifists in the absolutist sense; I don't imagine there is anyone with agency and average sensibilities who opposes the use of force in response to an unprovoked threat—be it from another person or some animal in predatory mode. I had a professor who told me of his grandfather, a WWII codebreaker who was, privatively, a pacifist but working patriotically for the military to decipher enemy communications; he often made light of the paradox to his wife and friends in the latter years of his life but never doubted his choice. I feel I am on the same boat; I am merely making light, but acknowledge that the stakes are high.

Oh c'mon, is the dismissive tone really necessary? I don't think forgoing details on a topic on these unaffiliated boards is an accurate gauge for aptitude in a detail-oriented environment as PR and legal. Being on these boards, needless to say, is not part of either mandate. Let's be sensible, friend.

I am not going to beat you up.  I will just say this, I had a pacifist under command, she was a photo tech, she had a nervous break down.  She is out now, do not think that any component or trade will shield you from the primary mission of a military force.  Consider your application carefully for yourself and for those who may be forced to take up the slack.   
Done, 34 years, 43 days complete, got's me damn pension!

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 240,597
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,501
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2017, 12:43:48 »

I'd love to go through all 149 pages of the debate, but I unfortunately don't have the time right now. Before I share my position, I'd like to make a few disclosures: I'm a pacifist who, paradoxically, is in the midst of joining the Naval Reserve in Public Relations--the idea of being a spokesperson and speaking on behalf of a defence institution that's inclusive and strong is very appealing to me--though I intend to eventually switch to part-time Legal Officer (currently in law school).


It's too bad you didn't go through them all. Otherwise, you will have noted towards the beginning of the thread, it was decided this thread would be restricted to solely Canadian firearm law. It's too confusing to try keep everything on track if both Canadian and US law are combined in the same area. Your discussion will be moved.
“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,461
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #9 on: June 23, 2017, 14:51:07 »
The 2nd Amendment is basically "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" with a prefatory clause, thus:

"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 archaic meaning of well regulated (contemporary for that time) is indeed something along the lines of "properly functioning".  Example: a well regulated machine.  No-one would confuse that as meaning something to do with being under legislative limitations.

"Security of a free State" should not require explanation.

The constitution has much to do with dividing things among three parties: the federal government, the States, and persons.  Throughout the documentation of the time, "the people" is understood to mean persons (as individuals), and neither of the first two.

So my take is that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of each person to hold personal battle arms.  To the extent that it is a "living" guarantee, the only modification is that the meaning of "arms" should be contemporary: musket and sword in 1789, assault rifle and bayonet in 2017.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #10 on: June 23, 2017, 15:16:42 »
Would have a title for that case, so I read up on it?

I seem to be having a "dog ate my homework" session.

I did a reply to this to everyone yesterday saying that I didn't since it seemed to be a case I did before my firm turned to computerized record keeping and that I'd PM you some of the details as I didn't want them on the forum.

Today I find that both my post and my PM to you (which I had to send three times before the system said the PM had gone through) have disappeared. Did you actually receive the PM or do I need to send it a fourth time?  :surrender:

:cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #11 on: June 23, 2017, 16:19:27 »
The 2nd Amendment is basically "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" with a prefatory clause, thus:

"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 archaic meaning of well regulated (contemporary for that time) is indeed something along the lines of "properly functioning".  Example: a well regulated machine.  No-one would confuse that as meaning something to do with being under legislative limitations.

"Security of a free State" should not require explanation.

The constitution has much to do with dividing things among three parties: the federal government, the States, and persons.  Throughout the documentation of the time, "the people" is understood to mean persons (as individuals), and neither of the first two.

So my take is that the 2nd amendment guarantees the right of each person to hold personal battle arms.  To the extent that it is a "living" guarantee, the only modification is that the meaning of "arms" should be contemporary: musket and sword in 1789, assault rifle and bayonet in 2017.

I'll disagree with the conclusion that "regulated" means "properly functioning" although I admit their is a giant stack of literature to support that notion.

The word "regulated", even then, means/meant such things as "control or supervise by means of rules or regulations". Synonyms include such terms as "managed, organized, supervise, directed, governed," etc. Note each of these, by its structure, implies an outside control which therefore ought to put the "well regulated militia" under the control etc of the state governments (the US political will at the time of the making of this amendment (1791) generally shied away from giving the control of military forces to the Federal government and left militias to the several States-remember that the Continental Army was disbanded immediately after the Revolution and only a tiny federal force was kept to guard the frontier and the West Point arsenal. The official "US Army"--still tiny--wasn't formed until 1796 and things didn't get serious until the weaknesses of the militia system were recognized during the War of 1812 and subsequently the Mexican affairs)

From this one should draw the conclusion that a "well regulated militia" should be one authorized, managed and controlled by each of the several States.

I'm kind of on this side of the argument:

Quote
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[163] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[164]

In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about "organizing", "disciplining", "arming", and "training" of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security ... confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority ... [but] reserving to the states ... the authority of training the militia ... A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss ... Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."[76]

That said, however, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (both by senior US courts as well as numerous State and Federal legislatures) has indeed been made entirely in favour of giving what appears to be a right to every Tom, Dick and Harry to buy and keep (with a bare minimum of any control or supervision) assault arms and to organize themselves into whatever form of group they wish to be.

There are clearly numerous articles and papers that suggest that "well regulated" in "archaic English" meant "properly functioning". Personally I think that this is a sophisms--fallacious argument--written/designed to get the result that the writer wants. Twisting and stretching the bounds of the ordinary meaning of words is a long standing legal device when the ordinary language runs counter to your desired outcome.

One would think that the American population and its leaders, at the time, having just overthrown the British government with a militia based army in order to create their ideal government where the people are governed by the democratically elected members of their own society, were more concerned about defending their new State from outside forces (Indians, Brits, French and Spanish) and not the need to overthrow their own government if and when it should turn against the people. One would think that if they interpreted the 2nd Amendment the way very many of Americans interpret it now then they, at the time, would probably have been worried about the Empire loyalists amongst them forming their own militias to overthrow the democratically elected governments in a counter revolution.

All of that said, I know that I'm p***ing into the wind here so there is no need to waste forum space to try to educate me. Folks like Scallia (also in Heller) have made it clear that in their view that the "right to bear arms" exists independently of any "militia":

Quote
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.[165]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

I was just a little bored today and thought I'd spout off about the fact that I think that the whole "properly functioning" argument is a stretch no matter how generally accepted it is by a wide part of US society.  ;D

:cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,967
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,751
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2017, 17:01:30 »
That said, however, the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (both by senior US courts as well as numerous State and Federal legislatures) has indeed been made entirely in favour of giving what appears to be a right to every Tom, Dick and Harry to buy and keep (with a bare minimum of any control or supervision) assault arms and to organize themselves into whatever form of group they wish to be.

Not quite.

The Second Amendment protects, but does not "give", a pre-existing right - the means of defending one's more basic right to "Life".

"Assault arms" cannot be freely bought, sold, and carried, and convicted criminals and certain others cannot legally possess any firearms at all.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2017, 17:46:01 »
Not quite.

The Second Amendment protects, but does not "give", a pre-existing right - the means of defending one's more basic right to "Life".

Quite right. The Scalia quote above makes that clear when he mentions "rights belonging to our forefathers".

"Assault arms" cannot be freely bought, sold, and carried, and convicted criminals and certain others cannot legally possess any firearms at all.

That depends on the various States. While "machine guns" are regulated by the Feds, assault rifles and everything below that are State regulated (or unregulated). Here's an overview of how the several States control guns (including assault weapons)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

I may have misused the term "Assault weapons" slightly when I meant to say "Assault rifles", but, regardless, the "Federal Assault Weapon Ban" of 1994 expired in 2004 and has not been renewed.

18 US Code 922(g) as you say applies to felons and many others in restricting access to firearms etc. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922#g

The trouble is that felons etc can apply to get their "right to bear arms" back and thousands have every year. In some States the restoration of those rights is automatic upon application. The following shows the mishmash of State laws:

http://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-state-comparisonstate-law-relief-from-federal-firearms-act-disabilities/

:cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child – miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats. -P.J. O’Rouke-
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 240,597
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17,501
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #14 on: June 23, 2017, 17:59:38 »
FJAG,

What is the definition of an 'assault rifle?'



“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

John G. Diefenbaker

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #15 on: June 23, 2017, 18:57:30 »
FJAG,

What is the definition of an 'assault rifle?'

I presume this question is leading to something. Quite frankly my past interests in firearms have long ago passed me by and at this point there are numerous people on this site who are much more knowledgeable about firearms and the laws respecting them than I am.

That said, I'm sure we both know that there is no one definitive definition for the term. Various laws etc define the term in various ways. For a general understanding the Wikipedia article on the subject is quite fine with me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

The only reason that I made the distinction in the above posts between "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" is that in my initial post I was actually referring to the generic "assault rifle" when I said "assault arms" and subsequently when Loachman pointed out that "assault arms" could not be freely bought etc, I looked to the expiration of the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban legislation which of course made things worse by adding a third term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban

which was part of the HR3355 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355/text

Semiautomatic "assault weapons" are specifically defined under Title XI and is both narrower and wider than the concept of the generic "assault rifle" in that not every "assault rifle" is included and that some items we wouldn't ordinarily consider an "assault rifle" are included.

I think for us laymen, the difference between the terms assault "arm", "rifle", and "weapon" is not one of apples and oranges and pears, but one of Valencia and Hamlin and Jaffa oranges; all kind of the same but not quite.

:cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,967
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,751
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #16 on: June 23, 2017, 19:35:53 »
An assault rifle is a lightweight rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge and has select-fire capability.

The completely meaningless and undefined term "assault weapon" was created by gun-banners in order to confuse and scare the ignorant and gullible segment of the population for the purpose of pushing through "gun control" legislation that harms law-abiding citizens while leaving criminals completely unaffected. It is used to make modern, reliable, ergonomic, and often modular, semi-automatic sporting rifles sound scary and evil.

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,790
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,461
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #17 on: June 23, 2017, 19:51:13 »
I'm content to grant that well regulated also means trained, disciplined, etc; an untrained, undisciplined mob isn't likely to be well regulated (functional, capable, in good order to accomplish its purpose, etc).  But the fixations I read in so many places on the meanings of "well regulated" and "militia" are beside the point, as are discussions over whether external or (future) internal threats were envisioned (they are all matters of security).

It is still an "In order for X to be possible, Y" statement, with "X" in no way limiting "Y".
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,967
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,751
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #18 on: June 23, 2017, 20:01:36 »
Regardless, it is an individual right and not a state right. Governments do not have rights, but powers and responsibilities.

"The right of the People" means just that.

Offline FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 96,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,022
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • WordPress Page
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #19 on: June 23, 2017, 22:15:48 »
Regardless, it is an individual right and not a state right. Governments do not have rights, but powers and responsibilities.

"The right of the People" means just that.

The funny thing about "rights of the people" is that a government can always take them away by legislation. Just because you had them once, doesn't mean they'll be there forever.

The role of constitutions and human rights laws etc is to ensure that those certain particular laws generally require that a larger percentage of the legislature must vote in favour of changing them than a simple majority vote (and in many cases the changes must be ratified by a certain percentage of subordinate states or provinces representing a certain quantity of the population for example or maybe by a referendum). Nonetheless, if enough of the legislature etc is in favour then change the constitution will change. Constitutional or human rights provisions are simply harder to change but not impossible.

:cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" book series at:
https://wolfriedel.wordpress.com

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,967
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,751
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #20 on: June 23, 2017, 22:22:27 »
Repealing the Second Amendment gets harder to do every single day, and it is already the hardest one to repeal.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,620
Re: US Second Amendment
« Reply #21 on: June 23, 2017, 22:42:42 »
The bill of rights came out of our experience as a British colony. Its been a successful feature of our republic.