Greetings new occupant to the thread....It's always good to see fresh ideas hit the thread. Stimulates the debate.
From: USSC US vs. Miller
The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --
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.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p*179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
which led the USSC to one particular conclusion......
The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon..... Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. ref: Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
I'll leave it to the reader[s], to substitute "a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long", with any arm of choice and make their own conclusions as to the applicability of the 2nd amendment on that arm, in the context of the interpretation of the United States Supreme Court.
You might also take note that within the Bill of Rights, Madison used words/phrases such as "the people", "Congress", "no person", "the accused", etc. He was familiar with collective nouns vs. nouns that were individual.
Taking a look at the tenth amendement, specifically.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
IMO, I think it's somewhat of a challenge to take the end of the amendment and reasonably interpret it to be equivelent to "are reserved to the States respectively, or to each person [individual]. Said differently, the use of "the people" seems to be a collective phrase and not an individual one.
But then again you might say that the USSC's Constitutional Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is "laughable" and end your argument at that. You could also either begin [or end] a claim of a "laughable decision", with the sentence "It's a fact and facts can't be denied". That always helps bolster the validity of a conservative argument.
jttmab |
