Guns, Guns Guns

2nd is irrelevent anyway.

Since it's conditional on government militias and there are no government militias anymore it should have lapsed.

:p

Fireflair, I'm not concerned about the statistic that the US has so many guns in private hands. Why should I be, don't live there, and am a gun owner myself anyway. One way that it does affect me is that while my wife and I are enthusiastic world travelers, she refuses to go to the US for several reasons, with the level of gun violence top among them. So I'll never get to see the Grand Canyon or other sights.
My interest is more academic, in that like most people in the developed world I'm puzzled by the US anomaly. How you folks have an outwardly seeming first world society, but so many weird differences to the rest of us, behind the scenes.

@Annachie: The US Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue many years ago. It quite clearly and firmly came down on the side of gun owners in that the right to bear arms, as enshrined in the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment, does not require a person to be part of a militia. That the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Right to bear arms, though that right may be regulated by the State.

The Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the other clause.

@Daryl: I don't know that I'd let the gun violence in the US stop me from vacationing here, but my perspective living here is obviously different. I've lived all over the US, moving around as the Navy required me to, and seen many different parts of the country. I've never feared for my life walking down a street or through a tourist destination. Most especially I didn't worry I was going to be shot, you may be certain.

Equally I have travelled and visited in Thailand, South Korea, the Philippines, South Africa, Egypt, Israel and a host of other countries without fearing for my life. Despite all the troubles and difficulties of the military one thing I unabashedly enjoyed was the chance to travel around the world and see so many different cultures.

I don't deny that there are plenty of things in the US which are different. No doubt they don't appeal to other people but by and large they have worked in the past for the United States. I suspect much of what is 'wrong' with the US is a result of polarization of extremes, with people being less willing to compromise and work together but instead are dead set on their view being the only right one. Other major factors are likely the increasing wage gap, worsening education system and poor public health care.

Fireflair wrote:@Annachie: The US Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue many years ago. It quite clearly and firmly came down on the side of gun owners in that the right to bear arms, as enshrined in the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment, does not require a person to be part of a militia. That the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Right to bear arms, though that right may be regulated by the State.

The Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the other clause.

It should however be noted that this ruling was a radical break with previous precedent by a conservative court. But conservatives are fine with the courts re-interpreting established law as long as they do it in ways they like, otherwise they are "activist judges".

For instance, this was the opinion of the Supreme Court in 1939 ruling on a case involving sawed off shotguns in United States vs Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. 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."

And...

"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"


In short, it was the opinion of the Court that the 2nd guaranteed only the right to bear arms as part of the purpose of maintaining the "well regulated militia" the amendment declares is the reason it exists. And if keeping such a weapon could not be shown to be serving that purpose the 2nd did not guarantee a right to bear it.

So says the Canadian...well in the US we have different laws and customs.

gcomeau wrote:

Fireflair wrote:@Annachie: The US Supreme Court has already ruled on that issue many years ago. It quite clearly and firmly came down on the side of gun owners in that the right to bear arms, as enshrined in the Constitution and specifically the 2nd Amendment, does not require a person to be part of a militia. That the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional Right to bear arms, though that right may be regulated by the State.

The Court first conducted a textual analysis of the operative clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Court found that this language guarantees an individual right to possess and carry weapons. The Court examined historical evidence that it found consistent with its textual analysis. The Court then considered the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," and determined that while this clause announces a purpose for recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms, it does not limit the other clause.

It should however be noted that this ruling was a radical break with previous precedent by a conservative court. But conservatives are fine with the courts re-interpreting established law as long as they do it in ways they like, otherwise they are "activist judges".

For instance, this was the opinion of the Supreme Court in 1939 ruling on a case involving sawed off shotguns in United States vs Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. 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."

And...

"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"


In short, it was the opinion of the Court that the 2nd guaranteed only the right to bear arms as part of the purpose of maintaining the "well regulated militia" the amendment declares is the reason it exists. And if keeping such a weapon could not be shown to be serving that purpose the 2nd did not guarantee a right to bear it.

smr wrote:So says the Canadian...well in the US we have different laws and customs.

So says the canadian.... based on historical evidence in the public record of the history of SCOTUS rulings on 2nd Amendment issues.

Holy FSM, smr, why are you even posting in these threads.

Why are you concerned with what I do...according to you I am a facist pig.

The E wrote:

smr wrote:So says the Canadian...well in the US we have different laws and customs.

So says the canadian.... based on historical evidence in the public record of the history of SCOTUS rulings on 2nd Amendment issues.

Holy FSM, smr, why are you even posting in these threads.

smr wrote:So says the Canadian...well in the US we have different laws and customs.

I just quoted YOUR legal rulings you genius.

So, according to smr, the SCOTUS in the 1930's was Canadian?

Miller was trying to violate the NFA.

He died before his case was even presented.

And because counsel didn't make it to the hearing so only the government presented on the case.

Presser V Illinois in 1886 clearly established the right to bear arms.

Miller would be the ruling that was breaking with precedent. If it was, which I don't really think it did given that it didn't stated people don't have the right to bear arms.