Starting out wrong
There is disagreement as to whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, due to the part referring to a “well regulated Militia”, means that only in the context of being part of a militia can an American own guns or if the Amendment guarantees the unqualified right of Americans to own guns and implies that it is because they may have to be part of a state militia.
January 13th, 2011 at 10:44 am
About as settled as the right to life/choice…
January 13th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Not settled. If it isn’t 100% the way that the progressives want it to be it isn’t settled – it is an anomaly that they want changed. See “Gun Show Loophole.”
January 13th, 2011 at 11:57 am
The 2nd Amendment’s reference to “militia” references the previous part of the Constitution:
Article I,Section 8:
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: 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;
If one reads the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, they are “added clauses” which are “restricitve” of the Federal Government and “declarative” of the rights of people and the States. In the cited Article I, Section 8.15-16, the Federal Government only has “delegated powers” to govern such part of the militia (armed citizenry) that it calls into service and EMPLOYS.
Also, it is quite clear from the statements of the founders and from the gramatical construction of the sentence of the 2nd Amendment that “militia” is synonoumous with “the people”, i.e. and armed citizenry.
Therefore ALL Federal laws to govern the armed citizenry NOT employed by the Federal Government are NOT within its “delegated powers” as clearly stated in the 10th Amendment in accordance with the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
January 13th, 2011 at 12:01 pm
Notice that one of the main reasons in the Constitution for the militia “when called into service and employed” by the Federal Gov’t is to “repel Invasions”, a specific duty which it REFUSES to do, even though a part of Arizona is currently UNDER OCCUPATION from foreign paramilitiary and drug cartels from Mexico!!
January 13th, 2011 at 2:22 pm
It’s not settled just because people in black robes decided. It won’t ever be settled. New people in black robes can come to the exact opposite conclusion and that will be the law of the land. It will still not be settled, ever.
January 13th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Hell with it. 10 USC 311 says all males between 17 and 45 are part of the militia. I therefore consider any gun control bill which does not provide me with a free M-16 and M-9 to be unconstitutional.