Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment And The NRA

[TheShootist 3]

23 hours ago, voyager9 said:

Scalia’s opinion in Heller is very clear the role of the unorganized Militia.  It is not a state-run and organized militia but the ability of a significant portion of the population to be ready and able to be called to arms to defend the state or nation against threats (including the state or nation itself). 

How did you draw these conclusions? Your individual right comes from the fact that you "are endowed by [your] Creator with certain unalienable rights".

The State cannot remove the Militia because it is also a function of their duty to uphold the Constitution; Article 1, Section 8, and Article 2.

As far as the "unorganized militia", I suggest you re-read the Dick Act. All able-bodied men 17-45 are the Militia. All others are members of an "unorganized militia" since they are no longer required to train, or perform a task other than those of able-bodied men. As for the National Guard, it is "troops *** of war" that the Congress allows the States to keep under Article 1, Section 10, Cls. 3.

Just keep shooting the messenger so you don't actually have to do anything more than give homage to the NRA and through good money after bad. 

 

[voyager9 3,434]

4 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

How did you draw these conclusions? Your individual right comes from the fact that you "are endowed by [your] Creator with certain unalienable rights".

The State cannot remove the Militia because it is also a function of their duty to uphold the Constitution; Article 1, Section 8, and Article 2.

As far as the "unorganized militia", I suggest you re-read the Dick Act. All able-bodied men 17-45 are the Militia. All others are members of an "unorganized militia" since they are no longer required to train, or perform a task other than those of able-bodied men. As for the National Guard, it is "troops *** of war" that the Congress allows the States to keep under Article 1, Section 10, Cls. 3.

Just keep shooting the messenger so you don't actually have to do anything more than give homage to the NRA and through good money after bad. 

 

From [Scalia's Heller Opinion](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html)

 

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939) , we explained

that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e.g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades … and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“[T]he militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271**. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

There are other parts but I’m on mobile

[TheShootist 3]

3 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Ok. Either I’m an idiot or your not very good at explaining things. Either way I don’t understand what your talking about.  You write a huge post with multiple quotes about a lengthy opinion and expect everyone to just get it.   

You also reply to my first post saying that you disagree and that those things are unconstitutional. I revise my response and agree and you post again saying I’m still wrong. Wtf. 

And Scalia goes well into detail about how 2A is an individual right based on the “unorganized militia”.  That’s not the pro gun side clinging. That what he said. 

First, let me apologize. I thought you were making a statement since I did not see a question mark after talking about the states disbanding militia. If it is a question then your individual rights comes from the basic principles or this nation, "[we] are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights".  

You don't lose your right to keep and bear arms because you are no longer in Militia. If you have Militia to begin with 
"to execute the Laws of the Union", who is going to remove the individual right? It comes down to who enforces the law. Do we enforce it, or do we allow tools of the government to do so. BTW, the word unorganized does not appear in the organic act. The word is reserve used. 

I'm not quite sure where the confusion comes in. Heller has been around for almost a decade with plenty of time to read and digest. The decision of the Court is coming to fruition now, as there have been a number of states trying to regulate firearms out of existence.

BTW, the individual rights theory comes from the NRA. The courts typically held the 2nd in the same light as the Founders defined it. If you bring a 2nd amendment case, you have to bring it in the context of the Constitutional mandates. How can you bring it on an individual rights theory when the people who wrote it said it was to make sure the Congress could not disarm Militia, and the states are required to have Militia to uphold their oath to the "Supreme Laws of the Land"?

[nondisclosure 55]

Marbury vs Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176,(1803)

 

Miranda vs Arizona, 384  US 436 p. 491

[voyager9 3,434]

I’m not sure I understand something. You mention that 2A is an unailable right but then you go on the tie 2A to the militia. Isn’t that a contradiction?

Heller specifically says that it is an individual right that is not tied to membership in a militia.    

[TheShootist 3]

16 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I’m not sure I understand something. You mention that 2A is an unailable right but then you go on the tie 2A to the militia. Isn’t that a contradiction?

Heller specifically says that it is an individual right that is not tied to membership in a militia.    

George Mason was co-author of the Bill of Rights. During the ratification debates he rhetorically asked, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." I think Scalia made the case under that doctrine. The right of the People to have a Militia is the basic foundation of all the principles of this nation; right to keep and bear arms, right to execute the laws of the Union, right to sovereignty, and so on. 

Justice Scalia tied the case for the petitioners. I didn't agree with his logic, but he put it together so that he could rule in favor of the petitioners. 

As a note, if you don't have a Militia, you don't have to have armed populace, nor does the populace need to own "weapons of war". If the people have an individual right, as is being argued, why does it have to be an AR or AK? 

I'm not sure if I explained that adequately as your question requires quite a bit more understanding of the entire complex. Here is a link, the last few articles contain answers. https://newswithviews.com/author/edwinvieira/

[TheShootist 3]

4 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

George Mason was co-author of the Bill of Rights. During the ratification debates he rhetorically asked, “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." I think Scalia made the case under that doctrine. The right of the People to have a Militia is the basic foundation of all the principles of this nation; right to keep and bear arms, right to execute the laws of the Union, right to sovereignty, and so on. 

Justice Scalia tied the case for the petitioners. I didn't agree with his logic, but he put it together so that he could rule in favor of the petitioners. 

As a note, if you don't have a Militia, you don't have to have armed populace, nor does the populace need to own "weapons of war". If the people have an individual right, as is being argued, why does it have to be an AR or AK? 

I'm not sure if I explained that adequately as your question requires quite a bit more understanding of the entire complex. Here is a link, the last few articles contain answers. https://newswithviews.com/author/edwinvieira/

 

42 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

I’m not sure I understand something. You mention that 2A is an unailable right but then you go on the tie 2A to the militia. Isn’t that a contradiction?

Heller specifically says that it is an individual right that is not tied to membership in a militia.    

BTW, you'll see that he uses the term unorganized militia in the articles. There is a reason for that, and it is part of the strategy I've been working on. 

[voyager9 3,434]

3 hours ago, TheShootist said:

As a note, if you don't have a Militia, you don't have to have armed populace, nor does the populace need to own "weapons of war". If the people have an individual right, as is being argued, why does it have to be an AR or AK? 

I believe this is backwards.  The right to bear arms is not solely tied to the militia.  I forget the exact wording Justice Scalia used but he stated something along the lines that bearable arms can be for military purpose but aren’t only for military purpose.  In fact I thought he had a whole section dedicated to how the right can’t be tied to the militia since the state controlled the militia. If it were The state could disband the militia and use that as justification to disarm the populous. 

As for ARs, the expectation (from Heller) is that members of the unorganized militia would own and be prepared with the arms necessary in case they are called to be organized in a formal militia. At the time that was muskets. In this day it would be semi-auto rifles like AR’s. 

[voyager9 3,434]

Here are the parts I was thinking of

It is therefore entirely sensible that the Second Amendment ’s prefatory clause announces the purpose for which the right was codified: to prevent elimination of the militia. The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting. But the threat that the new Federal Government would destroy the citizens’ militia by taking away their arms was the reason that right—unlike some other English rights—was codified in a written Constitution.  Justice Breyer’s assertion that individual self-defense is merely a “subsidiary interest” of the right to keep and bear arms, see post, at 36, is profoundly mistaken. He bases that assertion solely upon the prologue—but that can only show that self-defense had little to do with the right’s codification; it was the central component of the right itself.

And

If, as they believe, the Second Amendment right is no more than the right to keep and use weapons as a member of an organized militia, see Brief for Petititioners 8—if, that is, the organized militia is the sole institutional beneficiary of the Second Amendment ’s guarantee—it does not assure the existence of a “citizens’ militia” as a safeguard against tyranny. For Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia, which must include the authority to say who will belong to the organized force.17 That is why the first Militia Act’s requirement that only whites enroll caused States to amend their militia laws to exclude free blacks. See Siegel, The Federal Government’s Power to Enact Color-Conscious Laws, 92 Nw. U. L. Rev. 477, 521–525 (1998). Thus, if petitioners are correct, the Second Amendmentprotects citizens’ right to use a gun in an organization from which Congress has plenary authority to exclude them. It guarantees a select militia of the sort the Stuart kings found useful, but not the people’s militia that was the concern of the founding generation.

 

[TheShootist 3]

8 hours ago, voyager9 said:

I believe this is backwards.  The right to bear arms is not solely tied to the militia.  I forget the exact wording Justice Scalia used but he stated something along the lines that bearable arms can be for military purpose but aren’t only for military purpose.  In fact I thought he had a whole section dedicated to how the right can’t be tied to the militia since the state controlled the militia. If it were The state could disband the militia and use that as justification to disarm the populous. 

As for ARs, the expectation (from Heller) is that members of the unorganized militia would own and be prepared with the arms necessary in case they are called to be organized in a formal militia. At the time that was muskets. In this day it would be semi-auto rifles like AR’s. 

Is the subject the 2nd amendment, or the current argument of the individual right trying to be tied to restriction placed on the government, and how Scalia saved the case? 

Here are some articles by a man who has written more about the 2nd than the Selective Service Bureau. https://newswithviews.com/author/edwinvieira/

Here is one that will answer your questions much better than I explained it. https://newswithviews.com/the-irrelevant-second-amendment/

 

[1LtCAP 4,262]

19 hours ago, TheShootist said:

As a note, if you don't have a Militia, you don't have to have armed populace, nor does the populace need to own "weapons of war". If the people have an individual right, as is being argued, why does it have to be an AR or AK? 

 

sorry to cut up your post.

 i'm kind of confused on how there is no individual right when it says "the right of the people". that aside though......an ar or ak at this point is the closest we're legitimately allowed to own to what the military uses. they're dependable, light, and accurate(yes, even the ak). furthermore......knowing how the anti's work....should we not fight back hard on their wish to ban one of both of these, they WILL come for another specific model next time 'round.

[TheShootist 3]

1 hour ago, 1LtCAP said:

sorry to cut up your post.

 i'm kind of confused on how there is no individual right when it says "the right of the people". that aside though......an ar or ak at this point is the closest we're legitimately allowed to own to what the military uses. they're dependable, light, and accurate(yes, even the ak). furthermore......knowing how the anti's work....should we not fight back hard on their wish to ban one of both of these, they WILL come for another specific model next time 'round.

It's not my logic. That is the logic that is being pushed by some.