2nd Amendment; is it clear?

[AndyDufresne]

Futurama has all the answers.




--Andy

[thegreekdog]

Okay, let's go through this in more detail.

From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.
In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.

You and I disagree. I think the case law and the arguments around the 2nd amendment are due to the 2nd amendment being ambiguous. There are grounds for multiple interpretations. I'm not sure why you think it's clear given the number of tight legal fights over how to interpret it, often involving some radical changes in government policy, but hey, I think it's ambiguous, right from the get go.

How did you come up with the theory that it's ambiguous from the get-go, when every major Supreme Court decision and historical document on the subject up until about the year 2000, nearly 300 years of jurisprudence and history, interpreted the Second Amendment one way and only one way?

From the get go? I posted two different versions entered into law when it was put in place.

What was the one way and the only way it was interpreted for nearly 300 years?

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=184073&start=15#p4019981

Sorry dude, that was not the one way and the only way, nor is it the one way and the only way now.

Alright, we agree to disagree. You think the Second Amendment was ambiguous from the moment it was ratified (or maybe before). I think the Second Amendment was clear until 2008 (collective right) and even after 2008, I think it's clear (individual + collective right).

[patches70]

If you believe that only the militias have the right to bear arms, then you should probably ask-
Who is the militia?

The Founding Fathers asked that question and answered it, and so, you will find your answer to the question of the OP.....

[patches70]

Also, if you wish to find the current legal definition of "militia", then you need only refer to-
Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes"

You can look it up yourself, but if you are lazy, then here is the code in it's entirety-

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are —

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."


The answer is we (every American citizen) is the militia. In accordance to this, the responsibility of this means that just owning a gun is not enough. You are supposed to train with it, learn how to use it safely and be prepared to defend the nation, your family and your community.
In a sense, the plane that was brought down in a Pennsylvania field on 9/11 before it could reach it's target was brought down by the unorganized militia. As is the duty of every American citizen.

[Lootifer]

That looks like the only woman who are in the militia are those who are in the national guard; thus any woman not in the national guard does not have a 2nd amendment right? /chuckle

Either way, to me, the whole militia argument is pretty stupid. Its simply a cover argument in order to make the pro-guns argument more comprehensive. Your government isnt going to turn tyranical and take away your rights, and if they do the battles will never be fought with guns, but instead with media campaigns and court hearings. Likewise you guys spend more than enough on defense such that you will never need a militia to back up your first line of defense.

[patches70]

Either way, to me, the whole militia argument is pretty stupid. Its simply a cover argument in order to make the pro-guns argument more comprehensive. Your government isnt going to turn tyranical and take away your rights, and if they do the battles will never be fought with guns, but instead with media campaigns and court hearings. Likewise you guys spend more than enough on defense such that you will never need a militia to back up your first line of defense.

<facepalm JPG>

The militia argument is used by the gun grabbers who think that "militia" means only the national guard, police or organized militias when that is not the case in the eyes of the law.

[Lootifer]

To clarify (nice condescention btw); I support everyone being in the peoples militia; I just think its a pretty shithouse argument in support for private gun ownership (of which again I prob need to clarify - I am fairly neutral on the topic since it means very little in the scheme of things).

[Funkyterrance]

We are a million times more lenient on crime in the US as we were when this amendment was written/passed. I get the impression that we may be barking up the wrong tree; if punishments were stiffer there would be much less reason to "defend ourselves".

[AAFitz]

"Article the fourth.....A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -as written in the Constitution

This has been discussed before and different people have stated that it is vague or clear. To me it seems clear. I would like to look at this and see what people think.

What types of arms does it say we can keep?

Any arms, or is there a point where some types of arms are too dangerous to be held by individuals?

[AAFitz]

We are a million times more lenient on crime in the US as we were when this amendment was written/passed. I get the impression that we may be barking up the wrong tree; if punishments were stiffer there would be much less reason to "defend ourselves".

We really need to imprison more people and keep them in there longer, because we already have the highest rate of imprisonment in the world.

[Symmetry]

We are a million times more lenient on crime in the US as we were when this amendment was written/passed. I get the impression that we may be barking up the wrong tree; if punishments were stiffer there would be much less reason to "defend ourselves".

The US already imprisons its citizens at a higher rate that Soviet Russia under the height of Stalin, stiffer punishments ain't the solution. It may be part of it, but it's been tried.

[AAFitz]

You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.

I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.

In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.

I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.

Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?

That depends upon your definition of the word, "clear".

[Funkyterrance]

We are a million times more lenient on crime in the US as we were when this amendment was written/passed. I get the impression that we may be barking up the wrong tree; if punishments were stiffer there would be much less reason to "defend ourselves".

We really need to imprison more people and keep them in there longer, because we already have the highest rate of imprisonment in the world.

Hah! Whoever said anything about imprisoning anyone? That's not the old fashioned way at all. Jail was where you kept people before they were judged, not after.

[saxitoxin]

Your government isnt going to turn tyranical

The supposed utility of a provision of this kind can only be founded on the supposed probability, or at least possibility, of a combination between the executive and the legislative, in some scheme of usurpation. Should this at any time happen, how easy would it be to fabricate pretenses of approaching danger! Indian hostilities, instigated by Spain or Britain, would always be at hand.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa25.htm

[Symmetry]

You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.

I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.

In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.

I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.

Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?

That depends upon your definition of the word, "clear".

Apparently it means whatever interpretation has won most recently, not, of course, that there was any vague language employed when the politicians got to together and drafted it.

[thegreekdog]

You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.

I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.

In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.

I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.

Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?

That depends upon your definition of the word, "clear".

Apparently it means whatever interpretation has won most recently, not, of course, that there was any vague language employed when the politicians got to together and drafted it.

Nearly three hundred years before the language suddenly turned ambiguous.

[AAFitz]

Okay, let's go through this in more detail.

From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.

What type of arms does it say you can bear? All arms, or is there some point where some arms are too dangerous for an individual to own?

Also, how many arms can one own. Is there a point where someone owns so many arms that they become a danger to society, if not national security at large?

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of any type of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

Either, it is unambiguous, and I can own any kind or any number of arms and reason is irrelevant, or there is some debatable point where I exceed that right, which has not been defined in that amendment, which means there is ambiguity inherent in the entire amendment itself....and honestly....obviously so.

[AAFitz]

You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.

I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.

In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.

I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.

Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?

That depends upon your definition of the word, "clear".

Apparently it means whatever interpretation has won most recently, not, of course, that there was any vague language employed when the politicians got to together and drafted it.

Nearly three hundred years before the language suddenly turned ambiguous.

No, it was ambiguous from the beginning, as it relates to the types of arms that shall not be infringed. Simply address the post above, if you disagree.

[AAFitz]

You have heard TGD's argument above, bizarrely claiming that the amendment is not vague because it can be interpreted in many ways.

I am of the opinion that the amendment is vague because it can be interpreted in many different ways.

In the case of this amendment, sometimes these interpretations are polar opposites.

I take umbrage with your characterization of my argument using the word "intepret." The Supreme Court did not interpret the Second Amendment to include an individual right. The Supreme Court decided, for reasons other than the language of the amendment, that the amendment protected an individual right. The Supreme Court ignored the language of the amendment, therefore it could not have interpreted the language of the amendment.

Sooooo.... the legal arguments around the meaning of the second amendment aren't all that clear?

That depends upon your definition of the word, "clear".

Apparently it means whatever interpretation has won most recently, not, of course, that there was any vague language employed when the politicians got to together and drafted it.

Well, I hear ya, though I did mean that more as a Clinton joke than a real point.

[saxitoxin]

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

This seems to already be anticipated and addressed through state law, for example ...

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... t/2/26.htm

[thegreekdog]

Okay, let's go through this in more detail.

From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.

What type of arms does it say you can bear? All arms, or is there some point where some arms are too dangerous for an individual to own?

Also, how many arms can one own. Is there a point where someone owns so many arms that they become a danger to society, if not national security at large?

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of any type of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

Either, it is unambiguous, and I can own any kind or any number of arms and reason is irrelevant, or there is some debatable point where I exceed that right, which has not been defined in that amendment, which means there is ambiguity inherent in the entire amendment itself....and honestly....obviously so.

Which legal scholars, attorneys, and judges asked those questions from 1789 to 2008?

The answer is none, but, in any event, you've misconstrued what the debate is about the amendment is now. Is the amendment a collective right or an individual right? It has nothing to do with the types of arms, number of arms, etc.

[AAFitz]

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

This seems to already be anticipated and addressed through state law, for example ...

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp ... t/2/26.htm

I should not have said own an army, but your point is valid, though needing state laws to define the amendment could suggest it was not fully clear.

[AAFitz]

Okay, let's go through this in more detail.

From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.

What type of arms does it say you can bear? All arms, or is there some point where some arms are too dangerous for an individual to own?

Also, how many arms can one own. Is there a point where someone owns so many arms that they become a danger to society, if not national security at large?

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of any type of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

Either, it is unambiguous, and I can own any kind or any number of arms and reason is irrelevant, or there is some debatable point where I exceed that right, which has not been defined in that amendment, which means there is ambiguity inherent in the entire amendment itself....and honestly....obviously so.

Which legal scholars, attorneys, and judges asked those questions from 1789 to 2008?

The answer is none, but, in any event, you've misconstrued what the debate is about the amendment is now. Is the amendment a collective right or an individual right? It has nothing to do with the types of arms, number of arms, etc.

No, Ive misconstrued nothing. I simply asked some questions. The question in the title is "is the amendment clear?" And as it applies to a certain type of weapon, it could not be more on point.

Further, Im simply asking your opinion on the subject, and it seems you are evading it completely.

If you are arguing it means you have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon, it also means you have the right to own a tank...or, that the type of weapon can absolutely "be infringed" making the law ambiguous.

Either way, just answer the question. Does the amendment allow you to own any kind of gun you want? Its a simple question.

More importantly, if no one asked that question before....they are fucking idiots.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, let's go through this in more detail.

From the late 18th century until 2008, the Second Amendment was intepreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and most scholars as being a collective right.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment was both a collective right and an individual right.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous. The case law around the Second Amendment is ambiguous, but only because of the Heller decision. However, because the U.S. Supreme Court is the be-all and end-all of decisions regarding the Constitution, the law of the land, right now, which is not ambiguous, is that the Second Amendment grants both a collective and individual right to bear arms.

What type of arms does it say you can bear? All arms, or is there some point where some arms are too dangerous for an individual to own?

Also, how many arms can one own. Is there a point where someone owns so many arms that they become a danger to society, if not national security at large?

Are you really suggesting, that the amendment allows me to own an army, made up of any type of arms, because my right to own arms, shall not be infringed?

Either, it is unambiguous, and I can own any kind or any number of arms and reason is irrelevant, or there is some debatable point where I exceed that right, which has not been defined in that amendment, which means there is ambiguity inherent in the entire amendment itself....and honestly....obviously so.

Which legal scholars, attorneys, and judges asked those questions from 1789 to 2008?

The answer is none, but, in any event, you've misconstrued what the debate is about the amendment is now. Is the amendment a collective right or an individual right? It has nothing to do with the types of arms, number of arms, etc.

No, the question is is the amendment clear? And as it applies to a certain type of weapon, it could not be more on point.

Further, Im simply asking your opinion on the subject, and it seems you are evading it completely.

If you are arguing it means you have a right to own a semi-automatic weapon, it also means you have the right to own a tank...or, that the type of weapon can absolutely "be infringed" making the law ambiguous.

Either way, just answer the question. Does the amendment allow you to own any kind of gun you want? Its a simple question.

You're missing the point entirely. The amendment was not written to allow you to own certain types of weapons and not others, hence the idea of the collective right. It was not meant as an individual right to own weapons, it was meant as a collective right to form militias that were armed.

Look, before 2008, there was NEVER a Supreme Court case dealing with interpreting the extent of what weapons people could purchase. This is not hard to understand; there was no legal ambiguity. The Court was clear that the amendment granted a collective right for individuals to gather and form militias to fight a tyrannical government.

Pre-2008 I would have answered that question as follows: The amendment clearly does not allow you to own whatever weapons you want.

Post-2008 I would now answer the question as follows: You can own any weapon you want with some exceptions and the Supreme Court may even decide in favor of you owning a rocket launcher, but they punted in 2008.

[kentington]

I would say the one passed by congress if I had to choose.

Fair enough, and I hope you see that there's a lack of clarity even from the start.

There wasn't lack of clarity. You brought other versions into this thread. I posted the one written in the constitution and that was obviously what the discussion would have been about without anyone bringing in other versions.