Gilgo Beach killings suspect Rex Heuermann has petitioned the court to reclaim more than 280 guns that were seized from his home in July so he can sell them and financially help his family while in jail.
To me, the “well-regulated milita” became a moot point in the 19th century when all of the state militias were unified into the National Guard and state defense forces. The term was never intended to include private militias, as evidenced by the fact that in 1886, the Supreme Court concluded that militias are not constitutionally protected and that states have the right to ban them altogether (Presser v Illinois). So any state can choose to have their own militia or they can choose to prohibit them all together. It clearly shows that militias are under the control of the states.
The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens. I have no clue how we got to the point that we are currently in with 2A somehow protecting private ownership of assault rifles other than to blame corporate lobbying and institutional corruption.
The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens.
My take is that it was to enable the militia, especially minutemen, to, as the text says, “keep and bear arms” in their homes and not during actual battles.
I agree that that is how it was intended, so in turn, the amendment provides for National guardsmen and state militias to be permitted to keep guns rather than all private citizens.
What people? If you don’t think it’s referring to the people in a militia, you are completely ignoring the first part of the sentence. From congress.gov:
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.
It doesn’t say all people. Considering the entire sentence, “people” implies nothing more than the people of a well regulated militia.
Also, Madison was very clear that the right to bear arms was for the militia in the federalist papers.
It seems you have your mind made up, but you’re incorrect. The punctuation does a lot of work there separating the prefatory clause. The people are the same people covered in the first amendment.
That’s why, but how did they manage to pervert the amendment and get away with it? Before you answer, I understand it was ultimately the result of corruption, but why does no one talk about it from this specific angle? It seems so crystal clear to me that private gun ownership was never protected by the second amendment.
I think it’s very relevant to any questions of the Second Amendment.
As if one guy with 280 guns isn’t proof enough of the absurdity of reading “well regulated milita” out of the equation.
To me, the “well-regulated milita” became a moot point in the 19th century when all of the state militias were unified into the National Guard and state defense forces. The term was never intended to include private militias, as evidenced by the fact that in 1886, the Supreme Court concluded that militias are not constitutionally protected and that states have the right to ban them altogether (Presser v Illinois). So any state can choose to have their own militia or they can choose to prohibit them all together. It clearly shows that militias are under the control of the states.
The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens. I have no clue how we got to the point that we are currently in with 2A somehow protecting private ownership of assault rifles other than to blame corporate lobbying and institutional corruption.
My take is that it was to enable the militia, especially minutemen, to, as the text says, “keep and bear arms” in their homes and not during actual battles.
I agree that that is how it was intended, so in turn, the amendment provides for National guardsmen and state militias to be permitted to keep guns rather than all private citizens.
It says the right of the people, not right of the militia.
What people? If you don’t think it’s referring to the people in a militia, you are completely ignoring the first part of the sentence. From congress.gov:
It doesn’t say all people. Considering the entire sentence, “people” implies nothing more than the people of a well regulated militia.
Also, Madison was very clear that the right to bear arms was for the militia in the federalist papers.
It seems you have your mind made up, but you’re incorrect. The punctuation does a lot of work there separating the prefatory clause. The people are the same people covered in the first amendment.
How? It’s simple. Inducing fear and selling ‘protection’ is good money, and the NRA is here for it.
That’s why, but how did they manage to pervert the amendment and get away with it? Before you answer, I understand it was ultimately the result of corruption, but why does no one talk about it from this specific angle? It seems so crystal clear to me that private gun ownership was never protected by the second amendment.