2nd amendment: If the U.S. Constitution says one thing, and a court says another, which one should prevail? (employment, Somali)

[No_Recess]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

What should we obey? The 2nd amendment? Or the government officials making the "gun control" laws?

Obey natural law that says property rights are absolute.

The Constitution and government edicts are fictitious. Nobody ever consented to it.

[NY_refugee87]

Originally Posted by mohawkx

Some of those "guys" feel that way but many don't. I personally have tax stamps for 4 firearms myself plus a substantial collection of military battle rifles. I take people you would consider "Those guys" out to the range also.

The point is, when it comes to the 2nd, both sides of the fence realize what's at stake. I agree. There are people who hope that all guns will magically disappear and I've been shooting with guys who really should not have access to firearms. They're stupid, unconscious, and a danger to the entire range but they can show up with a truckload of bubbafied ARs and AKs.

I believe that the 2nd acknowledges and affirms that owning and possessing firearms is an individual right but I also believe that as with all other amendments, it is subject to reasonable restrictions. Heller got it right.
Where I live in Arizona a guy with a Desert Eagle strapped to his hip is no big deal.
Times Square in NYC with the same hardware is a different story.

Reasonable restrictions are reasonable, IMO.

How are they a danger to the entire range? I hear this talking point alot from Fudds who only bench rest shoot. I dont. I compete in 3 gun matches.
Always the Fudd boomer with a lever action/bolt action blatting because someone's doing a mag dump. Umm... the barrel is down range. Rounds are not going over the berm... so what exactly is the problem? Oh, they like something you don't?

Same was screeched over bumpstocks. LOL I could empty a mini14 just as fast when I was 14 years old than an AR with a bumpstock off of my shoulder too...

What's a bubbafied AR/AK? A quad rail Mlok rail with lights fore grip?
Ok. Tell you what. If you hold a lowly opinion of what others do with their property, wait until others hold equal or greater resentment for what you do with yours. Anyone can bench rest. Anyone can stand or go prone.
Think you'll complete a timed course with your Fudd bolt/lever action? Not at all.

It's not open to any reasonable restrictions. There's no logical reason why someone in times Square can't walk with a desert eagle or Glock on their hip. None what so ever. So it's more densely populated? Big deal.
What does that have to do with anything? Literally. What does that have to do with anything?

Literally there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction.

I've been handling firearms unsupervised since age 13. 18 years. Hell I even used to mail order AK parts kits and make the receivers myself in my highschool metal shop and completed them at home when I was a teenager. No injuries. Obviously I'm still alive... Unless you consider Garand thumb an injury... And that was way up in the sticks of upstate NY btw...

I always hear it from the Fudd country club elitist the "dangerous" goober that shows up with an AR or AK. I have yet to witness such behaviors at any range I have attended... And the ranges I attend allow everything. Even explosives. I have seen the country club Fudd elitist be more reckless and muzzle sweep the entire range and get booted. They pull their Thurdy Thurdy out of their case, away from the bench, lock it under their arm, and spin around to go back to the bench, muzzle sweeping everyone.

Every single boomer Fudd does it regardless the rifle. I literally have not seen anyone with an AR or AK be remotely irresponsible.

Guys with ARs and tapco dressed AKs? They're placing a drag bag with up to 4 carbines/rifles on the bench, muzzle facing down range, their bolt carriers locked open, magazine out of the mag well...

So what if they do mag dumps. So what if they have a comp or brake that makes them louder. There isn't anything reckless about that. Not at all.

Define reasonable for me. I don't see any legislation that is reasonable. At all. Not one. What I do see, rather false equivalence and conflating people for criminals merely for their taste in the weapons they like... along with projection. I can't trust myself with a firearm, therefore I can't trust you with a firearm.

Magazine capacity? Nothing reasonable about that. Maryland Gazette shooting proved that legislation to be worthless good feelz arbitrary law to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into felons. In NYs case, worse than that of a child molester.
Priorities. Cuomo has them backwards...

Rates of fire? Again. Arbitrary good feelz laws that only make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Caliber? Caliber doesn't determine lethality. The individual does. Not the weapon. That's the inanimate object that is incapable of thought and action on its own.

I can dismantle every proposal of legislation. They're not common sense. They're not for the greater good. They are most certainly not going to reduce any form of crime. Might breed new criminals for a good feelz movement.

[InformedConsent]

Originally Posted by Clarallel

No, that's not what the Second Amendment says.

It says that since an armed militia, able to be called up by the government on a moment's notice, is necessary to defend the country, anyone wishing to act in that capacity is free to own arms.

There is nothing wrong with restrictions. The First Amendment has restrictions, too.

The First Amendment does not include the "the right... shall not be infringed" mandate. That's why First Amendment Rights can be restricted but, Constitutionally, Second Amendment Rights cannot.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by Clarallel

No, that's not what the Second Amendment says.
It says that since an armed militia, able to be called up by the government on a moment's notice, is necessary to defend the country, anyone wishing to act in that capacity is free to own arms.

Here's the explanation, printed in this forum for the 368th time for yet another functional illiterate who neither reads the current thread nor understands the plain English of the Constitution. Or, more likely, is deliberately trying not to understand it.

Plus more printings 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.

Note especially the analysis of the Militia clause. Please.

------------------------------------------

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.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

Here's the explanation, printed in this forum for the 368th time for yet another functional illiterate who neither reads the current thread nor understands the plain English of the Constitution. Or, more likely, is deliberately trying not to understand it.

Plus more printings 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.

Note especially the analysis of the Militia clause. Please.

The Supreme Court does not agree with the learned Professor Copperud. The Constitution has usually been construed in accordance with common sense, not incoherent gibberish.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by jbgusa

The Supreme Court does not agree with the learned Professor Copperud.

To their detriment.

The Supreme Court has issued such an awkward, contradictory hodgepodge of rulings on "gun control", that if we can conclude anything on their "agreements", it is that they are irrelevant and even dangerous.

In 1939 they declared that the 2nd amendment protected only weapons similar to those used by the armed forces at the time. Since then governments all over the country have issued restrictions and even bans on those very weapons (AK-47, AR-15s, short-barrelled shotguns etc.) and the Supremes have blithely allowed them to stand.

Prof. Copperud's analysis comports exactly with what the 2nd amendment actually says. No wonder the Supreme Court doesn't like it. Their own rulings until recently have done anything but. If you want something the Supreme Court agrees with, good luck finding out what that is.

Maybe you should try making laws that the 2nd amendment agrees with instead. They will be a lot more consistent. And even legal.

And the best aspect of such 2A-agreeing laws, is that they will make the country a lot safer (though never perfect) than anything the "gun control" pushers have ever accomplished.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

To their detriment.

Roy Copperud, 76, Journalism Teacher Who Wrote Column

Originally Posted by Roboteer

The Supreme Court has issued such an awkward, contradictory hodgepodge of rulings on "gun control", that if we can conclude anything on their "agreements", it is that they are irrelevant and even dangerous.

In 1939 they declared that the 2nd amendment protected only weapons similar to those used by the armed forces at the time. Since then governments all over the country have issued restrictions and even bans on those very weapons (AK-47, AR-15s, short-barrelled shotguns etc.) and the Supremes have blithely allowed them to stand.

Prof. Copperud's analysis comports exactly with what the 2nd amendment actually says. No wonder the Supreme Court doesn't like it. Their own rulings until recently have done anything but. If you want something the Supreme Court agrees with, good luck finding out what that is.

Maybe you should try making laws that the 2nd amendment agrees with instead. They will be a lot more consistent. And even legal.

And the best aspect of such 2A-agreeing laws, is that they will make the country a lot safer (though never perfect) than anything the "gun control" pushers have ever accomplished.

Courts construe the Constitution and legislation in order to avoid incoherent and dangerous results.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by rbohm

the second amendment should prevail. especially since it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of what the Constitution means. Period.

Sometimes the left doesn't like it, sometimes the right doesn't like it. But that is the way it is. It's worked for over 200 years.

[Roboteer]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

The Supreme Court has issued such an awkward, contradictory hodgepodge of rulings on "gun control", that if we can conclude anything on their "agreements", it is that they are irrelevant and even dangerous.

In 1939 they declared that the 2nd amendment protected only weapons similar to those used by the armed forces at the time. Since then governments all over the country have issued restrictions and even bans on those very weapons (AK-47, AR-15s, short-barrelled shotguns etc.) and the Supremes have blithely allowed them to stand.

Prof. Copperud's analysis comports exactly with what the 2nd amendment actually says. No wonder the Supreme Court doesn't like it. Their own rulings until recently have done anything but. If you want something the Supreme Court agrees with, good luck finding out what that is.

Maybe you should try making laws that the 2nd amendment agrees with instead. They will be a lot more consistent. And even legal.

And the best aspect of such 2A-agreeing laws, is that they will make the country a lot safer (though never perfect) than anything the "gun control" pushers have ever accomplished.

Originally Posted by jbgusa

Courts construe the Constitution and legislation in order to avoid incoherent and dangerous results.

Originally Posted by normstad

SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of what the Constitution means. Period.

As always, people supporting big-govt liberalism and its agenda to take away people's rights, carefully avoid discussing what the law (starting with the Constitution) actually says, and try to talk only about what various lawyers and courts WISH it said.

Which is why this thread was started in the first place.

[mohawkx]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

How are they a danger to the entire range? I hear this talking point alot from Fudds who only bench rest shoot. I dont. I compete in 3 gun matches.
Always the Fudd boomer with a lever action/bolt action blatting because someone's doing a mag dump. Umm... the barrel is down range. Rounds are not going over the berm... so what exactly is the problem? Oh, they like something you don't?

Same was screeched over bumpstocks. LOL I could empty a mini14 just as fast when I was 14 years old than an AR with a bumpstock off of my shoulder too...

What's a bubbafied AR/AK? A quad rail Mlok rail with lights fore grip?
Ok. Tell you what. If you hold a lowly opinion of what others do with their property, wait until others hold equal or greater resentment for what you do with yours. Anyone can bench rest. Anyone can stand or go prone.
Think you'll complete a timed course with your Fudd bolt/lever action? Not at all.

It's not open to any reasonable restrictions. There's no logical reason why someone in times Square can't walk with a desert eagle or Glock on their hip. None what so ever. So it's more densely populated? Big deal.
What does that have to do with anything? Literally. What does that have to do with anything?

Literally there is no such thing as a reasonable restriction.

I've been handling firearms unsupervised since age 13. 18 years. Hell I even used to mail order AK parts kits and make the receivers myself in my highschool metal shop and completed them at home when I was a teenager. No injuries. Obviously I'm still alive... Unless you consider Garand thumb an injury... And that was way up in the sticks of upstate NY btw...

I always hear it from the Fudd country club elitist the "dangerous" goober that shows up with an AR or AK. I have yet to witness such behaviors at any range I have attended... And the ranges I attend allow everything. Even explosives. I have seen the country club Fudd elitist be more reckless and muzzle sweep the entire range and get booted. They pull their Thurdy Thurdy out of their case, away from the bench, lock it under their arm, and spin around to go back to the bench, muzzle sweeping everyone.

Every single boomer Fudd does it regardless the rifle. I literally have not seen anyone with an AR or AK be remotely irresponsible.

Guys with ARs and tapco dressed AKs? They're placing a drag bag with up to 4 carbines/rifles on the bench, muzzle facing down range, their bolt carriers locked open, magazine out of the mag well...

So what if they do mag dumps. So what if they have a comp or brake that makes them louder. There isn't anything reckless about that. Not at all.

Define reasonable for me. I don't see any legislation that is reasonable. At all. Not one. What I do see, rather false equivalence and conflating people for criminals merely for their taste in the weapons they like... along with projection. I can't trust myself with a firearm, therefore I can't trust you with a firearm.

Magazine capacity? Nothing reasonable about that. Maryland Gazette shooting proved that legislation to be worthless good feelz arbitrary law to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into felons. In NYs case, worse than that of a child molester.
Priorities. Cuomo has them backwards...

Rates of fire? Again. Arbitrary good feelz laws that only make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Caliber? Caliber doesn't determine lethality. The individual does. Not the weapon. That's the inanimate object that is incapable of thought and action on its own.

I can dismantle every proposal of legislation. They're not common sense. They're not for the greater good. They are most certainly not going to reduce any form of crime. Might breed new criminals for a good feelz movement.

You don't seem to want to have a reasonable discussion with some one who disagrees with some of your ideas. This is a discussion forum. Not a snarky middle school competition, which you sound like.

First off I'm an ex gunners mate of 76yrs now who finished my Navy career as a special weapons instructor at Damneck, Va. U.S. Naval Special Warfare Training Center after 4 combat tours in Vietnam. If you're not aware, that's where all the SEALS are trained. I was there from 68 to 70 before there were SEALS. Back then it was UDT and Army Special Forces.
My function was to train elites in the function, maintenance and proper operation of all types of Soviet weapons and West German small arms. It was a one week course. I was one of a team of instructors. FYI, I was never a member of UDT or Spec Ops. Just a sailor with lots of combat time. I won't claim to be something I'm not.

Here in Arizona, I and our organization work with State Legislatures to overturn what we consider restrictive gun laws. We were party to the legislature rescinding the requirement of having to obtain a permit to carry concealed. I have collected military firearms for over 40 years. I have never owned a lever action or bolt action hunting rifle or a "Fudd Gun" as you would call them. I do not hunt. I did all my killing at an early age. Sometimes we use a bench rest but it's more fun to shoot the chest sized piece of steel placed exactly 330 yards away from off the shoulder, with iron sights. Being an open heart surgery survivor with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Peripheral Arterial Disease, I'm not able to participate in those 3 gun drills


Bubbas are guys who show up at the range with a really nice AK that they modified with a 6 position AR stock, a $25.00, 50mm Chinese scope and a Quad rail with so much crap on it, it looks like a Swiss Army Knife They bring an 18 pack of bottled beer, drink the beer and then shoot the bottles, leaving the range full of broken glass. If they can, they bring old computer monitors and CRT televisions, blow the crap out of them and just leave them at the range when they're done. We've had 2 of our local desert ranges shut down by the Park Service because of all the old refrigerators, TVs and broken glass that has been left by Bubbas. They never pick up their trash or used targets and they have no idea what range etiquette is. They haven't cleaned their weapon since they bought it 2 years ago.

I still have a wall full of AK kits and over 20 receivers I've yet to build. Hungarian AMDs I bought for 49.00 a piece. AK74s with original Soviet Barrels for 99 bucks. Romanian 47s with original barrels and some IDF captured 47 kits. Now I mostly teach safe gun handling and usage to new people. I'll still build one for the right person.
My Granddaughters can take down completely any AK in less than 30 seconds, build an AR from scratch in less than an hour and completely dissemble a genuine HK 33A3 in under 5 minutes. They'll measure the bolt gap with a feeler gage for you. They are in middle school and have been shooting for 7 years.

After reading your response to my post, I have no respect for your views on what is responsible gun ownership. Most responsible gun owners would agree with me. If you don't respect the gun laws and other gun owners they won't respect you. If you want to change the gun laws, then work with the legislatures that will change them for you. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Pissing and moaning about them on the internet and alienating other gun owners is not the answer.

All I got out of your post was Juvenile, snarky comments that I would expect from a typical Range Bubba so our conversation is finished, scooter. As they say in Texas, "Some guys couldn't pour **** out of a boot if the instructions were printed on the heel."


Desert Eagles in Times Square, indeed.