Former Supreme Court Justice: Second Amendment Must Be Changed

[luckytxn 2,264]

Homeland Security.

People haven't forgotten. They just understand that in the current partisan divide, there is no chance of getting another Constitutional Amendment onto the books.

So they look for other ways to bring about a change, such as reinterpretation of current law.

[luckytxn 2,264]

There is no ambiguity. The right to arms is clear.

When a challenge goes before SCOTUS, they rule on it based on their legal opinions. Even Justice Scalia, who considers himself an originalist, takes liberties with his interpretation of what he thinks the Founding Fathers meant or wanted. It's unavoidable, especially with the ambiguity of the 2nd Amendment. Until it is changed or modified, different line-ups on the Supreme Court will continue to rule differently based on their legal opinions.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There is no ambiguity. The right to arms is clear.

There is a limiting preceding clause that seems to get overlooked by the gun freaks.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Militias in the sense they were used at the time the Bill of Rights were ratified, were strictly "regulated" by the individual states, well, the states that had them, mainly slave states that needed armed forces to keep the slaves on the plantations.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Well worth a read: http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/01/was-second-amendment-adopted-slaveholders

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There is no ambiguity. The right to arms is clear.

Our right to free speech is also clear. What is less clear is how and when those freedoms are limited, since even the most ardent constitutional originalists will concede that no right is absolute.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Yes I have heard this argument but the right of citizens to arms is not amibiguous. The meaning was that citizens had to have arms to form militias for self defense against hostile forces whatever they may be. They even had laws where every male over a certain age had to have a firearm which many very poor males could not afford. Later states started to form armories where citizens could go to arm themselves and the thinking was that regular citizenry wouldn't need arms in a civilized setting as they could go arm and form up militias. The idea was shot down because of the fears that the government would have control over when the citizenry could go and arm themselves. No the idea is that citizens should be able to have arms to protect themselves from hostility. Nothing amiguous.

Militias in the sense they were used at the time the Bill of Rights were ratified, were strictly "regulated" by the individual states, well, the states that had them, mainly slave states that needed armed forces to keep the slaves on the plantations.

Every right is an absolute in the constitution. Free speech is very clear also

Our right to free speech is also clear. What is less clear is how and when those freedoms are limited, since even the most ardent constitutional originalists will concede that no right is absolute.

[luckytxn 2,264]

There were always a need for militias in the north also.

Militias in the sense they were used at the time the Bill of Rights were ratified, were strictly "regulated" by the individual states, well, the states that had them, mainly slave states that needed armed forces to keep the slaves on the plantations.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Militias in the sense they were used at the time the Bill of Rights were ratified, were strictly "regulated" by the individual states, well, the states that had them, mainly slave states that needed armed forces to keep the slaves on the plantations.

Define "regulated"

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Every right is an absolute in the constitution.

Is this your opinion or do you have some legal reference that states that? You won't find any constitutional lawyer or judge who would agree with you.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia cautioned in his opinion. "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues."

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/12/16/Scalia-in-08-Right-to-bear-arms-is-not-unlimited/UPI-80201355648700/#ixzz2uHP8rnVS

[lostinblue 1,989]

Is this your opinion or do you have some legal reference that states that? You won't find any constitutional lawyer or judge who would agree with you.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/12/16/Scalia-in-08-Right-to-bear-arms-is-not-unlimited/UPI-80201355648700/#ixzz2uHP8rnVS

Scalia referred only to weapons a man is incapable of "bearing",

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Define "regulated"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

Nothing there implies an individual right.

Edited February 24, 2014 by The Postmaster

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/regulate

Nothing there implies an individual right.

the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Scalia referred only to weapons a man is incapable of "bearing",

Really? So handheld explosive devices are covered? How about depleted uranium bullets? Rocket launchers?

I'll repost Scalia's quote so you can read it again:

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia cautioned in his opinion. "From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...

Edited February 25, 2014 by Porterhouse

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Neither under the listed powers for Congress:

Article. I., Section. 8.:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

(further along in the same section:)

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Nor in the listed powers of the President:

Article. II., Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

are the words "regulate" and "militia" used in any manner as would suggest an individual right is implied by the 2nd Amendment.

Edited February 25, 2014 by The Postmaster