NO gun confiscation

[etgryphon]

[ 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

[elwoodblues]

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.

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.

[etgryphon]

[ 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

[tylerdurden]

[ 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 ]
[ 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

[elwoodblues]

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.

[jaxmike]

[ 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.

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)

[ 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"