Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did. That is why I pointed the discussion that way to prove a point.
It confirmed Presser v. Illinois was unconstitutional. The very ruling that set precedence for all gun legislation to follow.
The ruling, all gun legislation ever made was based upon.... Reversed.
Here is a writing from the Illinois Supreme Court summarizing McDonald versus Chicago...
************************************************** ***
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that "[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]
************************************************** ***
Further in the majority opinion ....
************************************************** ***
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[22] Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on alternative grounds, while also joining the majority decision: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[23] The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[24] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".[24]
************************************************** ***
If understanding English is all that is necessary why are we arguing about such a simple phrase for the last century.
Because desperate big-govt liberals and other gun-rights-haters depend absolutely on fooling people into believing it's not clear. They must continue sowing doubt and deceit into a clear, straightforward issue in hopes of fooling courts into ruling their way instead of the obviously correct way.
If the courts stop erroneously ruling their way, normal Americans will start realizing that they don't need big-govt liberals at all to live a sage, normal, and prosperous lives, and big-govt liberals will eventually become extinct.
Here's the explanation, printed in this forum for the 367th time. Plus more times to come, every time some desperate liberal fanatic trying to make up reasons to ignore the 2nd amendment, tries to pretend the 2nd isn't clear.
------------------------------------------
Reproduced in full with written permission from the author (see below):
J. Neil Schulman: The Unabridged Second Amendment
The Unabridged Second Amendment
by J.Neil Schulman
Author, Stopping Power: Why 70 Million Americans Own Guns & Self Control Not Gun Control
Webmaster, The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of Gun Week, and also appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment" in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter on July 26, 1991:
I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
The text of the Second Amendment is, "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."
The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.
My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, ProfessorCopperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying " militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schulman]: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman]: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:](3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman]: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman:] If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate"- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
True but pointless. The grand conspiracy for the second continues. If interpreted as written the 2nd would not make it through the next decade. So the conspirators misinterpret it to protect it.
True but pointless. The grand conspiracy for the second continues. If interpreted as written the 2nd would not make it through the next decade. So the conspirators misinterpret it to protect it.
(sigh)..The "well regulated" line is not near as ambiguous as you claim. For the umpteenth bazillionth time in the context of the time that term means well equipped and properly proficient. Or are we supposed to believe that the 2A is the only clause in the BoR that does not refer to a sovereign right of the people?
The complete lack of any historical context and just plain garden variety common sense in leftist arguments trying to negate the 2A really floor me. Throughout US history the militia (the people) have used the same small arms used by the regular military. From the Charleville musket to now the AR15. Shotguns and handguns also have followed this rule.
The burst and auto fire capability is not readily available for citizen application being what had to be sacrificed in order to be "well regulated" and compatible with NG reserve and regular armed forces. The 2A has also been seen as referencing only small arms as well. It creates a simple foundation for citizen militia in case of conflict.
Conflict that runs the gamut from criminal operations (like gang activity) through possible foreign invasion by regular forces or attempted governmental/military coup. A favored wacko leftist argument is also that service style weapons are unsuitable for hunting so the citizens shouldn't be able to have them. Again for the bazillionth time the 2A is NOT about hunting or sport shooting. Those things are incidental to the right to arms. Not core.
If service style firearms are banned from citizen use the militia would no longer be well regulated. The latter term does NOT mean government oversight and power over the right to keep and bear arms. This terminology has been taken totally out of context by leftist hoplophobes in an unfortunate attempt to usurp the peoples right to be properly armed in the event things get bad. Trying to make us again totally dependent on the state local and federal governments for the safety and security of our homes and communities.
Hey, if you want to rely strictly on the police or military in matters of personal security have at it. Just don't expect everyone else HAS to feel the same.
(sigh)..The "well regulated" line is not near as ambiguous as you claim. For the umpteenth bazillionth time in the context of the time that term means well equipped and properly proficient. Or are we supposed to believe that the 2A is the only clause in the BoR that does not refer to a sovereign right of the people?
The complete lack of any historical context and just plain garden variety common sense in leftist arguments trying to negate the 2A really floor me. Throughout US history the militia (the people) have used the same small arms used by the regular military. From the Charleville musket to now the AR15. Shotguns and handguns also have followed this rule.
The burst and auto fire capability is not readily available for citizen application being what had to be sacrificed in order to be "well regulated" and compatible with NG reserve and regular armed forces. The 2A has also been seen as referencing only small arms as well. It creates a simple foundation for citizen militia in case of conflict.
Conflict that runs the gamut from criminal operations (like gang activity) through possible foreign invasion by regular forces or attempted governmental/military coup. A favored wacko leftist argument is also that service style weapons are unsuitable for hunting so the citizens shouldn't be able to have them. Again for the bazillionth time the 2A is NOT about hunting or sport shooting. Those things are incidental to the right to arms. Not core.
If service style firearms are banned from citizen use the militia would no longer be well regulated. The latter term does NOT mean government oversight and power over the right to keep and bear arms. This terminology has been taken totally out of context by leftist hoplophobes in an unfortunate attempt to usurp the peoples right to be properly armed in the event things get bad. Trying to make us again totally dependent on the state local and federal governments for the safety and security of our homes and communities.
Hey, if you want to rely strictly on the police or military in matters of personal security have at it. Just don't expect everyone else HAS to feel the same.
What in the world are you talking about?
There is no doubt that the founding fathers intended to have a citizenry armed to the teeth and capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government by force of arms. They were after all card carrying revolutionaries who would have ended up dead or imprisoned if the colonies lost.
But it is the supporters of the 2nd who recognize that view is no longer workable. If neighborhood groups begin acquiring heavy high fire rate weapons and hand grenades or RPGs that law won't last two years. And wait until we have a battle between neighborhoods using such weapons. And some one mounts a machine gun on a drone and wipes out the bad dudes on the next block.
So the grand conspirators are the NRA and the pro 2nd groups. Trying to deliberately down play it so they can keep their toys.
It is not the left but the right that is lying to protect their guns from what would happen with a true reading of the 2nd.
The 2nd amendment says that since an armed, disciplined population is necessary for security in a free country, the right of normal people to KBA cannot be restricted.
This is clearly a flat ban on any govt in the country making any law restricting our ability to purchase, own, and carry a gun. Yet a number of governments (Federal, State, local) have made laws restricting exactly those things.
What should we obey? The 2nd amendment? Or the government officials making the "gun control" laws?
The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, ergo, the answer to your question is: The Supreme Court.
The constitution is a contract between the people, states and federal government. Any law that contradicts the constitution is illegal. If the court creates new law they are doing so illegally. Any “law” banning the second amendment would be illegal as would be court action against the second amendment. This kind of violation of the contract (constitution) would justify defiance. States are in the best position to stand up to illegal federal activities as individuals would have very little chance of success.
Here is a writing from the Illinois Supreme Court summarizing McDonald versus Chicago...
************************************************** ***
Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that "individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right" (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that "[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day" (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]
************************************************** ***
Further in the majority opinion ....
************************************************** ***
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[22] Writing a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on alternative grounds, while also joining the majority decision: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[23] The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case.[24] Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill" and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms".[24]
************************************************** ***
Both the above from the wiki
Sure! Like I said. Overturning Presser v. Illinois. The very ruling that set precedence for all gun legislation forward, until McDonald v. Chicago.
It nullified all gun legislation to date, because Presser v. Illinois was the precedence for the law. It is gone by the McDonald v. Chicago ruling.
There is no doubt that the founding fathers intended to have a citizenry armed to the teeth and capable of overthrowing a tyrannical government by force of arms. They were after all card carrying revolutionaries who would have ended up dead or imprisoned if the colonies lost.
But it is the supporters of the 2nd who recognize that view is no longer workable. If neighborhood groups begin acquiring heavy high fire rate weapons and hand grenades or RPGs that law won't last two years. And wait until we have a battle between neighborhoods using such weapons. And some one mounts a machine gun on a drone and wipes out the bad dudes on the next block.
So the grand conspirators are the NRA and the pro 2nd groups. Trying to deliberately down play it so they can keep their toys.
It is not the left but the right that is lying to protect their guns from what would happen with a true reading of the 2nd.
And yes the Second means exactly what it says.
What am I talking about? Destructive devices like grenades, RPGs, and other man portable rockets/missiles, artillery and such was not mentioned. As I said the 2A has generally been seen as being about small arms. Small arms suitable for service use are in contention now. There are some who would see RPGs and such as being covered for citizen use referencing the term "arms" as being broader than just rifles and such. I'm not of that opinion myself but if things get hairy enough I figure laws restricting them will no longer be applicable.
At any rate "high rate of fire" by which I believe you mean fully automatic weapons and destructive devices like grenades are pretty well unavailable to the citizenry so neighborhoods using such weapons in localized conflict is VERY unlikely. Unless these communities knock over a military base. You can't get such things at Cabelas.
My belief is that the 2A is meant to see the militia properly armed and equipped to form an effective light infantry force. One that can if required operate either independently or in cadre with regular forces. Militia weapons need to have a commonality of ammunition and repair parts compatible with the military. Militia cannot operate independently long term without some means of resupply and support.
Neighborhoods having at each other with any more than small arms and possibly improvised explosives is a far fetched concept. That's why I said that the 2A is about small arms and not city block destroying ordnance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
