SCOTUS rejects challenge to Maryland gun ban

a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't think they've ever explicitly stated that the phrase "militia" means every citizen, no. The closest they've come is saying that service in an actual "organized militia" is not a litmus test for being able to own firearms.

a reply to: Eshel


I appreciate your understanding, Eshel I have a tendency to get fired up over some of these issues, but especially the ones that hit so close to home for me. I agree though, less emotion and more reasoning is far more helpful than tangents/rants.

That is very impressive, and I also appreciate your service this country and its people. You've got nothing but respect from me in that regard! I can't think of a better rifle to learn on though, assuming you are talking about Mr. E. Stoner's brilliant creation

Admittedly, I would rather an adversary have to do a clumsy reload under stress as opposed to using a Beta C-mag or something. I have nothing against reasonable regulation, but personally usually have overreactions to arbitrary bans like this. States or people regulating firearms is very different than the federal government doing so (IMO). It is the bans that I take issue to. Even the NFA still provides a pathway to obtain the weapons (although they're not cheap!!!)

Of course I have a large quantity of the 30 round AR magazines, so such a ban wouldn't affect me really. I am mainly advocating for future generations, so they can enjoy shooting as much as we got to. Sharing my passion with my daughters was one of the most memorable things for them growing up. I was so proud when I saw my oldest take her first deer, and even more proud when I saw how upset she was for killing the deer. That is what humanity is all about, recognizing the value of life and the importance of even game animal life. We still hunt, but absolutely nothing goes to waste. Much like native Americans, every part is used. We've even practiced primitive tool making with bones. There is of course the issue of self defense and defense of state, which are certainly important concepts and issues as well

And your list of duty related firearms does show that you should be able to protect yourself with the "assault" weapons. (for lack of a better word atm)

True, and you have a really good point there as well. I can't recall the year, but we eventually started carrying pump shotguns in our vehicles. It may have even been after the Miami FBI incident, though I am unsure. I retired before North Hollywood happened, but I think that event is what started the widespread acceptance of the patrol rifle (usually an AR, but even bolt guns in some instances).

I appreciate your defense of the Constitution. But we must defend all parts. For example, I don't see many people getting nearly as heated about the 1st, 4th, etc etc that are being violated on a regular basis by our government. (or at least being slowly pushed).

You are absolutely right here as well, we all have to defend and uphold the entire Constitution. I have always been on the fence with supporting protesters (usually left wing protesters), but I need to be unequivocal in their defense moving forward. I believe that each amendment is equally important to our republic, and the health of our system of government. If we lose our Constitution, we lose our legitimacy as a nation

I guess a lot of my pro-gun arguments stem from the basic belief that we have a criminal/crime problem (blaming people and circumstances) as opposed to a gun problem (vs blaming the tool alone). I know there are plenty of different thoughts on this though, and I try to hear people out as much as possible. Like I said, I really do support a lot of the reasonable measures that people propose especially with the private sales background checks and securing firearms. I just can't help but feel that punishing or otherwise restricting the rights of people who have done nothing wrong is a slippery slope that we should think very carefully about especially during emotional times when that "knee-jerk" ban reflex happens

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I think militia means militia. But hasn't the Supremes ruled on this to mean citizens?

Yes, they have--in part because we have quotes and writings from the actual writers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that explain that the 2nd Amendment was written specifically to ensure that the citizens had the right to keep and bear arms.

Our modern reading of the word "militia" is different than what it meant back then.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: JBurns

55 mass shootings since Las Vegas: www.massshootingtracker.org...

You'd do your argument well not to cite that website--it includes things like domestic violence and gang violence, neither of which should be included as "mass shootings."

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: dfnj2015

I don't think they've ever explicitly stated that the phrase "militia" means every citizen, no. The closest they've come is saying that service in an actual "organized militia" is not a litmus test for being able to own firearms.

While it may not have specifically stated that "militia" is interchangeable with "individual citizen," it did say this (paraphrased):

[The Miller] precedent stood for nearly 70 years when in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.

Legal Information Institute

So, as it stands now, the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies directly to individual citizens, not just militias, so whether or not they are synonymous is irrelevant.

a reply to: dfnj2015


From Wikipedia:

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia. (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)

Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

Please take a look at this link: constitution.com...

Also check out the following, if you are interested in learning more about the militia and the U.S. Navy (the only authorized standing army) check out:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 13 of the Constitution
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution

It is also important to note that government is defined as being subservient to the people, who are sovereign to the government. This does not provide justification for the fringe "sovereign citizen" movement nor does it provide justification for radical fringe groups that call themselves militias. The true Constitutional militia (organized vs. unorganized) provides for defense of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as well as domestic law enforcement, maintaining order and repelling invasion or suppressing insurrection. The militia was intended to ensure the control of government was maintained by its Citizenry (read: difference between civilian and Citizen). It also important to remember that the supremacy clause only gives government authority when the laws it passes are Constitutional.

The second amendment is the only part of the entire Constitution that uses the word "necessary." Just some food for thought

Standing armies are still the most prevalent tool of dictators and tyrants, which is exactly why the militia (both organized and unorganized) is a keystone to maintaining our hard won liberty and freedom. I trust our military implicitly, but that in no way ensures it could never be used as an instrument of tyranny. Admittedly, It is highly unlikely since U.S. soldiers are generally Constitution loving patriots that would ignore illegal orders. But the safeguards themselves must remain, in order to deter tyrants and unlawful dictatorships from even having the chance to pop up.

Please do not confuse the radical fringe groups as true Constitutional militias. Please do not confuse the fact that Citizens are sovereign (higher authority) over government with the radical fringe sovereign citizen movement. The Constitutional militia is none of these things.

a reply to: introvert


I believe it means well regulated by the commanding officer of each militia unit - or the government if that militia unit is called up by their state/government. Establishing training, logistics, etc.

For certain weapons (machineguns, explosives for example) this could also include a militia armory. That is my speculation/opinion, as the word "Regulated" for that time period was akin to "well functioning" in order to be effective in combat if needed (much the way they were effective against Britain's regular soldiers in the American revolution).

Please keep in mind I am talking about the Constitutional militia, not the right-wing fringe groups that many associate with the term. Militias are pro-Constitution and pro-Government, and exist as a safeguard against tyranny, invasion, etc.

a reply to: dfnj2015


That is a gang/crime problem, not a law abiding gun owner or even a gun problem. Law abiding gun owners aren't the people engaging in these murderous rampages, it is by far gangbanger thugs. Domestic terrorist thugs are also a part of that equation, although far less than gangs.

Knowing full well they will be armed with "weapons of war" is exactly why we need those weapons. You can't make them disappear, and you can't stop criminals from stealing/building/importing dangerous weapons. Only law abiding Citizens follow the laws, therefore such measures only disarm the good guys.

Guns are tools. Criminals/crime/gangs/gangbangers are the real problem. If you eliminate gang shootings from that tracker, you'll see that number is much smaller. ~10% in fact.

a reply to: dfnj2015


I mean, if we're going to start infringing on civil rights, why start with the entire country? Why not just single out the gangs and round up all known gang members and gang associates? Random warrantless searches for criminals too.

Those things would be awful and egregious violations of Constitutional rights. However, wouldn't it be better to only target criminals instead of all Citizens - especially since good people are the only ones that would follow such a ban.

Of course the answer to that is no - on both counts. Infringing on any civil right is wrong.

Trampling on the first amendment to silence someone you don't like is wrong. This includes the right-wing passing laws to stifle protest, assembly and dissent.

Trampling on the second amendment to remove a tool you are undereducated on/dislike is wrong. This includes passing laws or creating inflated statistics to try to reinforce your position, it is dishonest.

Throwing away any part of the Constitution for appeasement, wishful thinking or even genuine good intentions does us and our future generations a disservice. The torch was passed on to us, by those who fought and died for these rights. We should not and can not allow any part to be abolished for political expediency or partisan culture wars.

a reply to: JBurns

Better, perhaps, to wait for some further changes to the Court, and then a similar case can be heard!

I'd like to see Constitutional Carry be the law in all fifty states, personally. You know, as it was written to be!

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Agreed

It is my hope this ends up being the case. Perhaps it is a good thing they didn't hear it, since the jurists of the SCOTUS rarely reverse an earlier opinion.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes


Agreed

It is my hope this ends up being the case. Perhaps it is a good thing they didn't hear it, since the jurists of the SCOTUS rarely reverse an earlier opinion.

That's what I am thinking, or perhaps there is another case that would make this one irrelevant.