The Second Amendment as ratified by the states. Note the comma separating the parts of the sentence. If the sole intent was a militia, the whole second half of the sentence could be left off. It does not say Because of the Militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As for SCOTUS, I am very disdainful of them when they go beyond their role of interpreting whether a law is in compliance with the Constitution. When they go beyond that they deserve disdain at a minimum and impeachment at a maximum.
Would you have held that opinion during segregation? What does it mean to you as a citizen if the Constitution guarantees a freedom to you, but your state can arbitrarily deny it?
People, people, people. The issue of the meaning of the Second Amendment is SETTLED. It has been settled by the Supreme Court in both the Heller (recognizing an individual right) and McDonald (incorporating it against the states) decisions. There is no longer any controversy about the meaning. The whole "what militia means" or "what comma went where" arguments are passe. As a matter of U.S. Constitutional law, the Second Amendment guarantees the citizen the individual right to own, keep, and bear firearms for personal defense. Period. There is no other valid legal interpretation.
"A well regulated militia" does seem to be the justification for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" though, otherwise there'd be no need to mention it.
Seems to me that, yes, you have the right to own firearms. You just have to follow certain guidelines. And it says nothing about you having the right to CARRY them anywhere you feel like.
That doesn't extend to banning them from an entire fucking city. And don't give me that "you can have it if you never load it, carry it, or let anybody see it" bullshit.
No. It is granting two rights that cannot take away. 1) The gov't cannot prevent states or private citizens from forming militias. 2) The gov't cannot prevent people from keeping and bearing arms.
Yes, but if I render the Second Amendment in modern language, it would say this: "An effective armed citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the individual to posess and carry small arms shall not be infringed." "Well-regulated" means "well-ordered, disciplined, functioning." In other words: effective. "Militia" means armed citizens.
It also makes it clear that a total ban on carry is unconstitutional. Even in CCW states there are areas off limits to carry (mostly private owned areas).
On the issue of carrying, the Supreme Court has not made any ruling defining the limit of that right. In the Heller decision, they did affirm there was a right to carry, but that it should not be assumed that this right extended to "all places, at all times, under all circumstances." However, as has been pointed out, this means that there is a right to carry "in some places, at some times, under some conditions." You may not be able to carry into a courtroom, or some sensitive government buildings, or schools, or maybe bars, but you'll be able to carry most everywhere else. At the end of the day, I suspect NYC (and a few other holdouts) will have to accept concealed weapons permits for people who want them and who have no disqualifying record.
Why? Kennesaw, Georgia can require every household within the city limits to possess a firearm. But you're down with that, 'cause you don't live in Kennesaw. You also don't live in NYC. And since your modus vivendi is "LEAVE ME THE FUCK ALONE!!!!" what gives you the right to decide for the residents of New York?
Actually, you don't have to Just say, "I don't think it's a good idea" and you're not required to possess a weapon.
Dandy. Has nothing to do with UA's assertion that NYC has no right to pass ordinances he doesn't agree with.
Good thing that's not what I said. Just your usual, blatantly dishonest "interpretation" to impress yourself.
Only to the extent of the standard sidearms of a common soldier, as explained, IIRC, in the Federalist Papers: a contemporary handgun, rifle, and shotgun.
It's actually the other way around: The people have a right to bear arms, IN CASE a militia is needed.
Oh, I see. So this: Doesn't mean "That doesn't extend to banning them from an entire fucking city." It means something else entirely.
Okay, there's a more reasonable interpretation that Paladin's "words mean what I want them to mean" attempt. That, I can go along with.
It means the individual American cities cannot simply override the U.S. Constitution because guns make them wet their pants. It has absolutely nothing to do with my agreement or how I feel about anything. That's just your snide little attempt to frame it as me doling yout privileges on a whim, because it's easer to belittle that than the reality of the situation.
So, all American cities, with regard to all clauses of the Constitution? Therefore Kennesaw can't require gun ownership, right? And no city in the U.S. can refuse to allow an abortion clinic in the center of town, right?
Of course not, and somebody already explained to you that they don't. Put it right in between a strip club and a hash bar, as far as I'm concerned. Who do you think you're talking to?
Which is the flip side of the fact that NYC, for example, allows LEOs to carry off-duty. The difference is, NYPD officers don't have to go down to City Hall and fill out a form asking for an exemption to the city ordinance the way citizens of Kennesaw have to. Just illustrating the point that by knocking down some municipal ordinances because you feel they're unconstitutional, you open the door to others. You may be unperturbed by Roe v Wade, but there's an interesting correlation between gun rights advocates and "abortion is murder" types.
Interesting. If I were writing the Second Amendment today, in today's language, it would say "Recognizing that the right of self-defense is the paramount right of all human beings and the ultimate guarantor of all other rights, the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms as they see fit shall not be infringed."
Right, so I interpret that to mean that all citizens vote on whether or not guns are allowed - since you said right right of each citizen (singular) to keep and bear arms as THEY (plural) see fit shall not be infringed.
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."
You cannot place unreasonable restrictions on a right. You cannot make people to pay to exercise a right. For example, you cannot have poll tests. Likewise you cannot have a poll tax. You cannot make pass a test to be accredited to criticize the government and cannot make someone buy a license to be one. Like wise you can put reasonable restrictions on rights. You can make someone show proof of voting eligibility (voter registration). You can hold someone for speaking (slander) or publishing (libel) a falsehood that damages someone else. You can put a restriction on speech that prevents one from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. So there should not be any restrictions on the ownership of firearms other than ones permitted already for other rights (I.e. felons losing the right to vote, etc...). However you can place restrictions on that right when they could immediately harm someone. Carrying a firearm is not immediate harm. Pulling it out and brandishing it with out just cause would be harmful (the yelling fire in a crowded theater). So there is the balance between the exercise of a right and constitutional permissible restrictions.
