Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment NOT about militias

[Architect]

Sigh.

 

[Drudgewire]

The People can make up a well regulated militia and then bear arms, as part of that well-regulated militia. That's what the sentence means. It specifically establishes that well-regulated militias are necessary for the freedom of the state. Private gun ownership is almost the opposite of a well-regulated militia, isn't it?

Nope. You interpret the comma one way, the Supreme Court interpreted it the other (and correct) way. "You have the right to bear arms. Want a specific reason? OK, someday you might have to overthrow the government and should have arms at the ready so you can form a militia. Happy now?"

 

[Leif Roar]

That is what duels are about, someone dis's you and you fight them hopefuly kill them.

Actually, formalised duels were a social convention that controlled and limited the use of violence. Basically, rather than having a heated argument turning directly into a violent fight, it was sidetracked into a challenge for a duel. This was a way to let tempers cool and let the persons involved work out their differences. There would usually be significant pressure from family, friends and people in authority to make amends and call off the duel. Only if this failed would the disagreement end up causing violence, and that violence would be carefully controlled and limited to the protagonists.

 

[volatile]

Nope. You interpret the comma one way, the Supreme Court interpreted it the other (and correct) way. "You have the right to bear arms. Want a specific reason? OK, someday you might have to overthrow the government and should have arms at the ready so you can form a militia. Happy now?"

It's not just the comma. It's also the words "well-regulated", "militia" and the collective noun "people", which have specific meanings that, together, produce a sentence that is entirely the inverse of "unregulated individual private gun ownership".

The comma just underscores that fact.

 

[Drudgewire]

It's not just the comma. It's also the words "well-regulated" and "militia", which have specific meanings that are entirely the inverse of "unregulated private gun ownership".

The comma just underscores that fact.

If we have to form a militia, it will be a little too late after the fact to suddenly ask an oppressive government to legalize the sale of firearms so we can rise up against them.

But the point of the ruling is that there are two separate clauses in the amendment. The right to bear arms stands alone, as does the right to a well-regulated militia. And you don't need the second part to make the first part one of our constitutional rights.

 

[Leif Roar]

It's not just the comma. It's also the words "well-regulated", "militia" and the collective noun "people", which have specific meanings that, together, produce a sentence that is entirely the inverse of "unregulated individual private gun ownership".

The comma just underscores that fact.

Still, it is the responsibility and authority to interpret the constitution lies with the supreme court, so the supreme court's interpretation is, by definition, the correct one. (We can of course argue the soundness of the Supreme Court's reasoning, but that has strictly academical interest.)

 

[volatile]

If we have to form a militia, it will be a little too late after the fact to suddenly ask an oppressive government to legalize the sale of firearms so we can rise up against them.

Irrelevant to the discussion of the meaning of the Second Amendment as written, especially as it requires you to read the words "against the Government" into the sentence.

But the point of the ruling is that there are two separate clauses in the amendment. The right to bear arms stands alone, as does the right to a well-regulated militia. And you don't need the second part to make the first part one of our constitutional rights.

The are not separate clauses, because the first clause is a sub-clause of the second. Both clauses contain collective nouns, make no mention of individual ownership, and, taken together, establish conditions (a well-regulated militia, gun ownership of the people, collectively) that are entirely the opposite of individual, unregulated gun ownership. You speak English, and well. Why do you resort to such syntactical torture here?

Now - the rights and wrongs of individual gun ownership are a different issue, and should perhaps be settled with a new, and clear, amendment. But trying to pretend the Second says the opposite to what it actually does is just facetious.

 

[volatile]

Still, it is the responsibility and authority to interpret the constitution lies with the supreme court, so the supreme court's interpretation is, by definition, the correct one. (We can of course argue the soundness of the Supreme Court's reasoning, but that has strictly academical interest.)

Of course. I understand that entirely.

Doesn't mean the Court's not wrong, though, or that its interpretation isn't just weird from a semantic standpoint.

 

[Leif Roar]

Of course. I understand that entirely.

Doesn't mean the Court's not wrong, though, or that its interpretation isn't just weird from a semantic standpoint.

Actually, it does mean that the Court's not wrong. The Supreme Court is the interpreting authority so any legal interpretation it makes is, by definition, the right one. (As the right interpretation of the constitution is the one made by the Supreme Court.) It might be unsound, in that the reasoning behind the court's decision is flawed, but it can't be erronous or wrong.

 

[Drudgewire]

Now - the rights and wrongs of individual gun ownership are a different issue, and should perhaps be settled with a new, and clear, amendment. But trying to pretend the Second says the opposite to what it actually does is just facetious.

The second amendment is interpreted as "private ownership of firearms for home defense is legal and shall not be infringed upon."

Supreme Court just said so, and all other interpretations are nothing more than lip service as of 10:15 am EST on 6/26/08.

 

[Neally]

Doesn't mean the Court's not wrong, though, or that its interpretation isn't just weird from a semantic standpoint.

Not at all weird if you look historically at where James Madison was coming from when he wrote the amendment and what his intention was.

Madison said that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

The DOJ did an opinion paper that discuss this and came to the same opinion that

The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

 

[volatile]

The second amendment is interpreted as "private ownership of firearms for home defense is legal and shall not be infringed upon."

Supreme Court just said so, and all other interpretations are nothing more than lip service as of 10:15 am EST on 6/26/08.

I get that. I get that you're happy, and I understand that the legal and democratic process of your country has decided that private gun ownership is OK.

What I don't get is why this necessitates some completely weird semantic wrangling. Why not just say "The Second Amendment is clearly about militias, but we, as a country, want to crystallise the further right to private ownership to arms, so let's do that properly and transparently with a new, clear amendment". It's like you have to jump through weird, semantic twists just to make it feel like you're right.

This is torturous abuse of the English language in the pursuit of a strange ideology, and it's so strange to witness from afar.

 

[cafink]

The sentence is about militias. The clause, which establishes "well-regulated militias" as "necessary" in fact seems to actively exclude private, unregulated gun ownership (because it is not "well-regulated", and has nothing to do with militias), and if you'd read it as you would any normal English sentence, that would become clear. The first clause establishes the conditions for bearing arms, quite clearly.

I don't think that is clear at all. I do not see how the first clause can be read as establishing a condition for bearing arms. It merely establishes the reason for the the right to bear arms.

 

[volatile]

Not at all weird if you look historically at where James Madison was coming from when he wrote the amendment and what his intention was.

Madison said that Americans had "the advantage of being armed," that was lacking in other nations, where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

The DOJ did an opinion paper that discuss this and came to the same opinion that

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.pdf

That might be the court decision, reached through a particular ideological lens, but it manifestly is not what the text of the Amendment means in the English language. That's what I'm arguing against here - that somehow the text of the Amendment itself supports private gun ownership. It doesn't. It obviously doesn't, because it talks about "a well-regulated militia", and the right of "the People", collectively, to "bear arms". Which is the opposite of unregulated private gun ownership.

Whether or not private gun ownership is good or bad, the text of the amendment simply does not support it.

 

[volatile]

I don't think that is clear at all. I do not see how the first clause can be read as establishing a condition for bearing arms. It merely establishes the reason for the the right to bear arms.

The key word is necessary.

 

[Suddenly]

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

There is a right. Whatever. This is of concern mostly to academics. Next page.

It leaves completely open the real question: how far can the Federal government go in regulating this right. The implication is that it can go pretty far.

If it makes someone happier that a gun law is in place as a permissible regulation of a right to bear arms rather than just there, great...

 

[NoZed Avenger]

And from The Hill

The District since 1976 has restricted handgun ownership to former or current law enforcement officers who registered their guns before 1977.

* * *

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty and other supporters of the ban argue that restricted gun ownership is a tactic to battle gun violence in the city.

And how has that been working out for DC since 1976, Mr. Mayor?

 

[volatile]

If it makes someone happier that a gun law is in place as a permissible regulation of a right to bear arms rather than just there, great...

Well, quite. You're exactly right. All this constitutional hand-waving is just bizarre, and, I think, serves as a buffer to real debate on the issue.

 

[Garrette]

Sound and fury signifying nothing.

There is a right. Whatever. This is of concern mostly to academics. Next page.

Which volatile has made quite clear; it is an academic/semantic discussion. Nothing wrong with that; don't participate if you don't care for it.

That might be the court decision, reached through a particular ideological lens, but it manifestly is not what the text of the Amendment means in the English language. That's what I'm arguing against here - that somehow the text of the Amendment itself supports private gun ownership. It doesn't. It obviously doesn't, because it talks about "a well-regulated militia", and the right of "the People", collectively, to "bear arms". Which is the opposite of unregulated private gun ownership.

Staying in the semantic realm, you haven't convinced me. My earlier post still stands. It can just as obviously be read to mean that to achieve the purpose of a well regulated militia, the means must be protected and the means are found in an individual right.

 

[Drudgewire]

I've just written the ACLU (which yes, I'm a member of) to see if they're going to change their policy:

http://www.aclu.org/police/gen/14523res20020304.html

ACLU POLICY

"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." — Policy #47

Guess what guys? It's a civil right now. Get with the program.