NO gun confiscation
 

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.


How is the unconstitutional action of confiscating firearms from law-abiding NO citizens being justified? Is there some legal precedent concerning this situation that trumps the Bill of Rights?

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

It's because people argue the wordings. People argue what is actually the definition of "people." And other people argue that times change, and that gun control might be necessary in the forefathers' eyes if they saw our current time.

But I think that's all bulls***. The Bill of Rights should not be altered or trumped ever. It's our only protector of rights.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

Yeah but it clearly states "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There's not much to argue there. How can it be ignored? Is it just because there isn't enough public outcry against the unconstitutional action? I'm seriously confused as to how/why this is happening.

Are there really so many americans that want a big brother/babysitter state that we can let this slide?

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

"Are there really so many americans that want a big brother/babysitter state that we can let this slide?"




We can't but we have. Obviously unconstitutional gun control laws have been accepted without a peep. Because "guns are scary", or it's "for the common good", or "that gun isn't good to shoot bunnies with", or whatever BS du jour is spewed. People don't get it.

Newspeak
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.


How is the unconstitutional action of confiscating firearms from law-abiding NO citizens being justified? Is there some legal precedent concerning this situation that trumps the Bill of Rights?

[/ QUOTE ]
If the highest courts in the land can conclude that "public use" means "private use", that "personal use" equates to "interstate commerce", then why would it surprise anyone if they end up interpreting "keep and bear" to mean "be free of"? How about "keep forebearance"?

Whether it's being justified or rationalized, the court will have to participate and be a willing accomplice for it to happen.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.


How is the unconstitutional action of confiscating firearms from law-abiding NO citizens being justified? Is there some legal precedent concerning this situation that trumps the Bill of Rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, its because of the "martial law" or whatever they have to declare in Louisiana. Did you think you had rights under martial law or something?

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

I'm a card totting member of the NRA... and I don't mind guns be taken away from criminals...

However, I missed the story about law abbidding citizens having their weapons takend away.

SOURCE PLEASE?

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

An argument can be made that the wording of the amendment indicates that the right of the people to bear arms only applies insofar as the militia is concerned. Otherwise, the founders, who were very careful about their choices of words, would just have said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." without the qualifying clause.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
How is the unconstitutional action of confiscating firearms from law-abiding NO citizens being justified

[/ QUOTE ]
Why just law abiding folks? The Amendment doesn't make that distinction. Why are you? Wouldn't it take an activist judge to add that to the language?

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

There is no provision for "Marshall Law" in the LA state constitution. However, there is a provision that in times of emergency that the cheif law enforcement officer has the ability to "regulate" the possession of firearms.

Now the question is whether "regulation" extends to "confiscation" of legally owned firearms. I would put forth that it does NOT cover the possession within the house at a BARE minimum. There will probably be a ton of suits out of this.

The 2nd Amendment can only be invoked as a part of the 14th Amendment and possible the Commerce Clause in this case.

The La. Constitution only states:

Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

So I think "regulation of possession" only extends to the possession of a "concealed firearm" in certain places.

-Gryph

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
An argument can be made that the wording of the amendment indicates that the right of the people to bear arms only applies insofar as the militia is concerned. Otherwise, the founders, who were very careful about their choices of words, would just have said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." without the qualifying clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here we go again...

So now what constitues the "militia"? Who is in the "militia"? It is like saying, "In order to keep my feet clean, my right to wear shoes shall not be infringed" Wearing shoes doesn't only mean clean feet it can mean a lot of things, but maybe CHIEF of those means is to keep my feet clean. And any law that would infringe on my ability to wear shoes may in fact infringe on my ability to keep my feet clean. So all laws preventing my ability to wear shoes must be prevented.

Same thing in the 2nd Amendment.

As I stated in my other post. The 2nd Amendment will not apply here until the 14th Amendement is violated. And that can't be violated until the State refuses to uphold their own constitution.

-Gryph

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

But a rule of construing statutes and the constitution is that we assume there is no superfluous language. The milita language, in this case, would be superflous.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

I love that we are arguing the 2nd Amendment...

The 2nd amendment has been completely bastardized over the last 20 years.

The argument to ban "law abiding" citizens from owning anything but a 9 round pistol or a hunting rifle is probably the same one that is being used to now confiscate all fire arms.

The NRA has been warning about this slippery slope for the better half of a century.

We reap what we sow.

I really feel bad for everyone that has lost a family member because of fire-arm miss-use. But on this issue... the political pendulum has swung way too far to the left for far too long.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
But a rule of construing statutes and the constitution is that we assume there is no superfluous language. The milita language, in this case, would be superflous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is most decidedly not superfluous. It is a reaffirmation of the need and existance of a "militia" which in the reading of the law/precedent/general knowledge includes all law abiding able-bodied persons who do not have a moral objection to the use of firearms to protect the liberties of the people and perserve the state.

In a word, exactly the things that where occuring down in N. O.

-Gryph

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a card totting member of the NRA... and I don't mind guns be taken away from criminals...

However, I missed the story about law abbidding citizens having their weapons takend away.

SOURCE PLEASE?

[/ QUOTE ]

ABC video with the new orleans police chief saying "no one will be able to be armed... we're going to take all the weapons." Plenty of goons in full combat gear entering houses with guns drawn.

http://media.putfile.com/NewOrleansGunConfiscationSmall

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm a card totting member of the NRA... and I don't mind guns be taken away from criminals...

However, I missed the story about law abbidding citizens having their weapons takend away.

SOURCE PLEASE?

[/ QUOTE ]

ABC video with the new orleans police chief saying "no one will be able to be armed... we're going to take all the weapons." Plenty of goons in full combat gear entering houses with guns drawn.

http://media.putfile.com/NewOrleansGunConfiscationSmall

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you... agree or disagree I have found you most informative

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

So you want the word militia to have some meaning (only law-abiding folks), but not too much meaning (i.e. that the whole provision should be read in the context of militias.)

That very well might be a reasonable interpretation. I would argue that it's no less a stretch (and perhaps even more of a stretch) of the language of the amendment to apply it only to law abiding folks as it would be to apply it only in the context of militias.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
An argument can be made that the wording of the amendment indicates that the right of the people to bear arms only applies insofar as the militia is concerned. Otherwise, the founders, who were very careful about their choices of words, would just have said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." without the qualifying clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it can't.

Here is the text...

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 is two independent rights, actually three, that are deliniated here.

First is the right to a militia. Interestingly, I believe the founders EXPECTED each state to have a well regulated militia.

Second is the right for people to own arms. Another interesting note here is the fact that there are no limitations. I assume that it would be perfectly acceptable for a citizen to own a cannon if you asked the founding fathers. Whether this translates directly into thermonuclear weapons is another question entirely.

Third is the right for people to bear arms. In modern times we have not allowed people to have a concealed weapon without a permit. We have limited where people can take their weapons. I somewhat agree that weapons should not be taken into a bar, or a church, or a school. But we need to be VERY careful about losing our RIGHT to have weapons, and carry them.

I am a big fan of Virginia's "open carry" law.

Original intent !!!
 

I would argue the theory of original intent. I think the situation in NO is exactly what the framers of the Bill of Rights had in mind.

Private-law-abiding citizens using their legally owned fire-arms to protect their property and livelihood.

mi·li·tia ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-lsh)
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. (from dictionary.com)

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]


Third is the right for people to bear arms. In modern times we have not allowed people to have a concealed weapon without a permit. We have limited where people can take their weapons. I somewhat agree that weapons should not be taken into a bar, or a church, or a school. But we need to be VERY careful about losing our RIGHT to have weapons, and carry them.

I am a big fan of Virginia's "open carry" law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I concur... another area of "slippery slope"

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
So now what constitues the "militia"? Who is in the "militia"?

[/ QUOTE ]

The US code defines the militia as all able bodied males over 17 that aren't government employees or something along those lines. I'll provide a link after work.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
The NRA has been warning about this slippery slope for the better half of a century.

We reap what we sow.



[/ QUOTE ]


The nra for years was a sell out appeasing anti-rights organization that let terms like "sporting use" into the debate. One of the reasons rights have been eroded was that the biggest and richest gun lobby was wimpy. The NRA now sees that individual gun rights are important and not just so some people can go shoot a bunny or a bambi. But they were too late. Where were they in the '30's with the awful class III legislation? Where were they in 1968? Why is it that entire populations in major states are disarmed now? I have belonged in the past and might re-join, because I do think they do some good. but there are better pro-gun lobbies, at least as far as having a consistent philosophy. The NRA is a nice safe moderate group with a lot of members and money.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

Yes, pretty much everybody is in the militia. But the amendment obviously protects the rights of all the people, not just those defined to be in the militia.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

Wouldn't the amendmend, in today's language, read:

Being that 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 infringed.

or

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 infringed.

A militia with its members possessing thermonuclear devices wouldn't qualify as being "well regulated." And it's evident that a well regulated militia can exist without thermonuclear devices. Again, why wouldn't the framers have just said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is they hadn't intended it to be related to the requirements of a well regulated militia?

I agree with you that the framers did indeed intend for each state to have a well regulated militia. It's also likely that the they would have had no objection to a citizen having a cannon. Then again, their ideas of 'cruel and unusual" punishment were probably very different from ours.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, why wouldn't the framers have just said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is they hadn't intended it to be related to the requirements of a well regulated militia?

[/ QUOTE ]

They did.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The part about the militia is NOT a limitation, it's an expansion. It's specifically granting the right for militia's to exist. Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

No, they didn't. It's all one sentence.

"Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias."

I agree. Thus if they wanted the right to bear arms without reference to a militia they would have said so. But they didn't.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

If they come to take the guns away, I always thought the logical action would be to shoot them. But I don't think people have the moral balls.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, they didn't. It's all one sentence.

"Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias."

I agree. Thus if they wanted the right to bear arms without reference to a militia they would have said so. But they didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try again since you still do not understand.

Ok, if the Constitution read "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is there a right to a militia?

No, at least not enumerated.

If the Constitution said "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

Is there a right for the people not in the militia to bear arms enumerated in the Constitution? No.

So, the framers put BOTH in, because BOTH were important.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, they didn't. It's all one sentence.

"Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias."

I agree. Thus if they wanted the right to bear arms without reference to a militia they would have said so. But they didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think at the time... it was hard for the framers to separate the two.

Think of the historical context... everyone owned a gun for hunting and they had just come off the most amazing mobilization of a private militia.

I believe they meant both were important (a militia and the right to individaully bear arms), but just assumed the two would normally go hand-and-hand.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

Now, we will get into the definition of "well-regulated". Does it mean "restricted" or does it mean "well-trained"?

The meat of the amendment is in the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Two things need to be address:
(1) Does the object in question qualify in the category of "arms".
(2) Does a law or action on the part of the government or by another citizen "infringe" on the individuals ability to keep or bear this as now defined "arms".

If you look, Miller v. US puts forth the reasoning or test to prove the definition of (1) above is by finding the presence of the said object in question in the arsenal of the Military.

This would include automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and the like...

It is pretty much settled law but no one wants to enforce it .

-Gryph

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, they didn't. It's all one sentence.

"Basically, you can't have a militia without a right to bear arms. But you can have the right to bear arms without having militias."

I agree. Thus if they wanted the right to bear arms without reference to a militia they would have said so. But they didn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why couldn't they establish the right and offer a rationale; the rationale offered being perhaps only the most important or obvious amongst several existent rationales? Why do you presume that the rationale offered is the only rationale they had, or that naming one rationale compels them to name all rationales?

Another matter: even if your point is granted at face value for the sake of argument, it would then be incumbent on you (or upon the courts, heh;-) to show that a militia IS NO LONGER NECESSARY for the security of a free state--and I don't believe that can be shown. Hence the right to keep and bear shall *still* not be infringed because the original rationale has not been demonstrably obviated.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]

Another matter: even if your point is granted at face value for the sake of argument, it would then be incumbent on you (or upon the courts, heh;-) to show that a militia IS NO LONGER NECESSARY for the security of a free state--and I don't believe that can be shown. Hence the right to keep and bear shall *still* not be infringed because the original rationale has not been demonstrably obviated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly...

-Gryph

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now, we will get into the definition of "well-regulated". Does it mean "restricted" or does it mean "well-trained"?

The meat of the amendment is in the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Two things need to be address:
(1) Does the object in question qualify in the category of "arms".
(2) Does a law or action on the part of the government or by another citizen "infringe" on the individuals ability to keep or bear this as now defined "arms".

If you look, Miller v. US puts forth the reasoning or test to prove the definition of (1) above is by finding the presence of the said object in question in the arsenal of the Military.

This would include automatic weapons, semi-automatic weapons, and the like...

It is pretty much settled law but no one wants to enforce it .

-Gryph

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow... you are one deep dude.

I think the well-regulated part actually referred to "well-disciplined" (something that was lacking in our original militia)... well defined in the book "1776"

P.S. On the statement about Nukes being part of Well Armed... I think 'well armed' should only include weapons with a blast radius sufficient to kill no more than 10 individuals (just my opinion of course).

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]


Wow... you are one deep dude.



[/ QUOTE ]

Thats what my wife says...Bu-Dump - Teee!
[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]
[ QUOTE ]

I think the well-regulated part actually referred to "well-disciplined" (something that was lacking in our original militia)... well defined in the book "1776"


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes... That is another definition and is well regarded.

[ QUOTE ]

P.S. On the statement about Nukes being part of Well Armed... I think 'well armed' should only include weapons with a blast radius sufficient to kill no more than 10 individuals (just my opinion of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

The safeguard for the correct use of arms is in the legality of its use. Can the use of a privately held nuke be reasonably limited in it scope as to not create the loss of innocent life? I have nothing to fear from a law-abiding person owning arms only criminals.

-Gryph

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

The problem is that there is no way to regulate whether or not weapons will be used for the original intent... i.e. to protect the state.

It's kind of a catch-22... as is so much of the Constitutional / Bill of rights verbage.

The Framers made the mistake of thinking average Americans were smart enough to self regulate. Which, let's be honest, a lot of us aren't.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]


A militia with its members possessing thermonuclear devices wouldn't qualify as being "well regulated."

[/ QUOTE ]

The meaning and intent of every word in that amendment has been discussed and argued within an inch of its life. Many argue, and I agree, that "regulated" here, and at the time of the framing, did not refer to government control. It particularly did not refer to federal control. The very purpose of all this was to keep power away from the federal government.

In the online dictionary I just checked, there are two definitions of regulated. The 1st, the most common usage today, is: controlled or governed according to rule or principle or law.

The second, which many if not most constitutional scholars take to be the original intent, is

[ QUOTE ]
regulated - marked by system or regularity or discipline; "a quiet ordered house"; "an orderly universe"; "a well regulated life"


ordered, orderly


organized - methodical and efficient in arrangement or function; "how well organized she is"; "his life was almost too organized"

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is to say, orderly and efficient.

In addition, the 2nd Amendment must be considered in context. It was one of the 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, which are ALL individual rights. And the intent of the Bill of Rights is to acknowledge these rights as human rights, not as privileges granted by the Constitution or the government.

That said, the "militia" language in the 2nd Amendment is not and was not meant to be a condition on the rest of the wording. Some of the most liberal, most anti-gun Harvard law professors have, grudgingly and with great reluctance, come to view the 2nd Amendment as recognizing an individual right:

[ QUOTE ]
Another major figure in modern constitutional law is Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe who is anti-gun and a liberal. Earlier versions of his famous text endorsed the states'-right view, but, having examined the historical evidence for himself, he now reluctantly admits the Amendment guarantees "a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes." [Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Vol. 1, pp. 901-902 (2000)].

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Famed constitutional lawyer and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who defended O.J. Simpson and Claus von Bulow, is a former ACLU national board member who admits he "hates" guns and wants the Second Amendment repealed. Yet, says Dershowitz: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

[/ QUOTE ]

The thermonuclear issue is specious. The courts have already ruled that the government can put reasonable limits on gun ownership, including special licensing for automatic weapons.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]

The Framers made the mistake of thinking average Americans were smart enough to self regulate. Which, let's be honest, a lot of us aren't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not entirely true...The framers didn't trust citizens to vote if they weren't land owners, female etc. And those that that did vote didn't really vote for the president or the senate...representatives did that.

They still trusted people with the ability to keep and bear arms.

I am unwilling to limit the rights of the majority of people who are law abiding because there is a *chance* that someone will not use their right correctly.

Preserve the right...Punish the law breaker...

-Gryph

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why couldn't they establish the right and offer a rationale

[/ QUOTE ]

They could have, but that wasn't the way they approached the document. I can't think of any other place off the top of my head where they outline a right along with the rationale. It would seem odd that they decided to do that in just this one place.

Re: NO gun confiscation
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why couldn't they establish the right and offer a rationale




[/ QUOTE ]
They could have, but that wasn't the way they approached the document. I can't think of any other place off the top of my head where they outline a right along with the rationale. It would seem odd that they decided to do that in just this one place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it seems perhaps odd, but that does not disprove it. Also, as another poster has pointed out, every other Amendment in the Bill of Rights deals with individual rights. So wouldn't it also be odd if the 2nd Amendment did not? So "oddness" in and of itself is merely somewhat suggestive, not conclusive.

Bare yer arms
 

This is actually quite a vindication. There was a heated discussion some months ago about whether or not the armed citizens in the United States could pose any serious threat to a government tyranny. I was claiming that guns are mainly for self-protection; the "protection of the free state" part has become an impossiblity, in the modern, powerful state. I said, either form militias or fortget about it.

And I recall, not without amusement, the long and passionate denials by the various strains of pro-gun posters here. No, no, no, they were saying, if or when the time comes, the people will form militias and resist any kind of gun confication, any form of tyranny.

Well, life ain't the movies, kids. Turn on the TV sets and see for yourselves.