Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: 2nd Amendment

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Monroe, Washington, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    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.

    I have been watching this forum for several months now and have yet to OC however I CC everywhere I go except work as they won't allow it. I plan to OC sometime in the future howeverI need to get a good retention holster for it, as right now I only have a shoulder rig andmy inside the pantshas no retention.

    I have learned so much from reading posts on here and admire the knowledge and how well spoken many of the posters here are that it is somewhat intimidating.

    I'm deeply concerned with the upcoming supreme court ruling on the 2nd amendment. so I thought I'd post my thoughts.

    I guess I don't understand why the US supreme court would have to rule on what our fore fathers meant by this.

    I have always considered myself a person, one of the people of this great nation. I was once a member of a well regulated militia, the US Air Force. Although I am no longer a member of that militia I am still a person.

    So I guess my question would be since I am no longer a member of a well regulated militia could they rule that I am no longer a person? What then would I be? It scares the hell out of me to think these well educated individuals could somehow rule that a person does not have the right to KABA.

  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bear, Delaware, USA
    Posts
    1,241

    Post imported post

    U.S. Code Annotated (U.S.C.A.) title 10 sec. 311
    (as amended Nov. 30, 1993) [relating to the definition of militia]

    "311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are--

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National
    Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members
    of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    Naval Militia.
    "

    We are still militia -- just not organized.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    I was just looking at the Wikipedia entry for the case.

    Here's the question:

    The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

    Based on that, I'm fairly optimistic.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    phiche92 wrote:
    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.

    I have been watching this forum for several months now and have yet to OC however I CC everywhere I go except work as they won't allow it. I plan to OC sometime in the future howeverI need to get a good retention holster for it, as right now I only have a shoulder rig andmy inside the pantshas no retention.

    I have learned so much from reading posts on here and admire the knowledge and how well spoken many of the posters here are that it is somewhat intimidating.

    I'm deeply concerned with the upcoming supreme court ruling on the 2nd amendment. so I thought I'd post my thoughts.

    I guess I don't understand why the US supreme court would have to rule on what our fore fathers meant by this.

    I have always considered myself a person, one of the people of this great nation. I was once a member of a well regulated militia, the US Air Force. Although I am no longer a member of that militia I am still a person.

    So I guess my question would be since I am no longer a member of a well regulated militia could they rule that I am no longer a person? What then would I be? It scares the hell out of me to think these well educated individuals could somehow rule that a person does not have the right to KABA.
    As Wynder said, the militia isn't the National Guard and the N.G. isn't a militia. The National Guard came into being at the time of WWI, a long time after the framers of the Constitution wrote it. The militia was all able bodied males 16 years and older and with todays laws that would be all males and females 16 years and older. So they can't not make you a person.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    Also keep in mind that the 2nd doesn't say that you have to be a member of the militia in order to keep and bear arms. It only gives the idea of a militia as the reasoning behind having the right. Even if the militia were completely removed from the USC we would still have our right. Even if you are over the age of 45 and therefore legally no longer a part of the militia you still have the right.

    In retrospect I suspect that the founding fathers might have left the militia words completely out of the amendment had they known the grief it was going to cause.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Ajetpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Olalla, Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,410

    Post imported post

    The Declaration of Independence acknowledges our inalienable right to life. Implicit to the right to life is the right to protect our lives. Even if the Second Amendment were to disappear, I submit that the right to carry the tools necessary to protect our lives would be found in the Ninth Amendment.
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Jered is right... the SC isn't rulling on the 2A. They are hearing the case brought on by a Washington DC resident who wants to own a handgun. Should cities be able to make laws that prevent handgun ownership like DC has?? When the SC rules on this I have confidence that the rights of the people in DC will be restored. It will be a good day.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    heatho wrote:
    Jered is right... the SC isn't rulling on the 2A. They are hearing the case brought on by a Washington DC resident who wants to own a handgun. Should cities be able to make laws that prevent handgun ownership like DC has?? When the SC rules on this I have confidence that the rights of the people in DC will be restored. It will be a good day.
    And how is that not going to be a ruling on what the 2A means?

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    heatho wrote:
    Jered is right... the SC isn't rulling on the 2A. They are hearing the case brought on by a Washington DC resident who wants to own a handgun. Should cities be able to make laws that prevent handgun ownership like DC has?? When the SC rules on this I have confidence that the rights of the people in DC will be restored. It will be a good day.
    And how is that not going to be a ruling on what the 2A means?
    It is in a way... just not dirrectly. It'll be a ruling on the city's law, not the 2A. But I agree, it will determine how the 2A is read.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    heatho wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    heatho wrote:
    Jered is right... the SC isn't rulling on the 2A. They are hearing the case brought on by a Washington DC resident who wants to own a handgun. Should cities be able to make laws that prevent handgun ownership like DC has?? When the SC rules on this I have confidence that the rights of the people in DC will be restored. It will be a good day.
    And how is that not going to be a ruling on what the 2A means?
    It is in a way... just not dirrectly. It'll be a ruling on the city's law, not the 2A. But I agree, it will determine how the 2A is read.
    And what is the SCOTUS going to cite as the reason the DC law is unconstitutional? You think maybe the 2A? Which will define what the 2A means. Your really don't understand how this works do you?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    16

    Post imported post

    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    heatho wrote:
    Bear 45/70 wrote:
    heatho wrote:
    Jered is right... the SC isn't rulling on the 2A. They are hearing the case brought on by a Washington DC resident who wants to own a handgun. Should cities be able to make laws that prevent handgun ownership like DC has?? When the SC rules on this I have confidence that the rights of the people in DC will be restored. It will be a good day.
    And how is that not going to be a ruling on what the 2A means?
    It is in a way... just not dirrectly. It'll be a ruling on the city's law, not the 2A. But I agree, it will determine how the 2A is read.
    And what is the SCOTUS going to cite as the reason the DC law is unconstitutional? You think maybe the 2A? Which will define what the 2A means. Your really don't understand how this works do you?
    Obviously you are more versed in the universe than I. I don't understand how what works? Semantics?


  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    OK so by the definition of "Militia" non-able bodied, physically and mentally handicapped, males and all females not in the NG are not part of the militia therefore they do not have the right to bear arms.

    I don't agree with it but I could see the word play coming up in the courts. It looks to me like this is the definition of the draft pool more than it is a militia.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    joeroket wrote:
    OK so by the definition of "Militia" non-able bodied, physically and mentally handicapped, males and all females not in the NG are not part of the militia therefore they do not have the right to bear arms.

    I don't agree with it but I could see the word play coming up in the courts. It looks to me like this is the definition of the draft pool more than it is a militia.
    No! It says no where that you have to belong to the militia to have the right. The militia is just a reason they gave, not a requirement.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    A well regulated militia...

    This reffers to the common man armed with a rifle, forming a military unit to help in local combat. Today, politicians have twisted it to mean "national guard", but it is very clear in the federalist papers that this term was meant as a non-government military force, and was supposed to be MORE powerful than the government military force, to prevent tyrany.

    ...being necessary to the security of a free state,...

    Again, this is reffering to the ability of an armed group of citizens being capable of standing up to the government military to defend freedom, and the ability of the common man to assist in protecting his country from foreign invaders.

    ...the right of the people...

    This reffers to civilians.

    ...to keep and bear arms...

    This means owning and being allowed to carry and possess weapons of a comparable nature to those used by the government military.

    ...shall not be infringed.

    shall not be infringed.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Kitsap County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    573

    Post imported post

    expvideo wrote:
    A well regulated militia...

    This reffers to the common man armed with a rifle, forming a military unit to help in local combat. Today, politicians have twisted it to mean "national guard", but it is very clear in the federalist papers that this term was meant as a non-government military force, and was supposed to be MORE powerful than the government military force, to prevent tyrany.

    ...being necessary to the security of a free state,...

    Again, this is reffering to the ability of an armed group of citizens being capable of standing up to the government military to defend freedom, and the ability of the common man to assist in protecting his country from foreign invaders.

    ...the right of the people...

    This reffers to civilians.

    ...to keep and bear arms...

    This means owning and being allowed to carry and possess weapons of a comparable nature to those used by the government military.

    ...shall not be infringed.

    shall not be infringed.
    +1
    Couldn't have said it better.

  16. #16
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Just because it bears being mentioned, our state constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms even better than the US Constitution does:

    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
    Notice how it mentions the right of the individual citizen, not the militia, and how it "shall not be impaired", which I think is even more explicit than "infringed", since it implies that anything that prevents an individual citizen from bearing arms is illegal.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Marble, Washington, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post



    Just because it bears being mentioned, our state constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms even better than the US Constitution does:

    SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
    Notice how it mentions the right of the individual citizen, not the militia, and how it "shall not be impaired", which I think is even more explicit than "infringed", since it implies that anything that prevents an individual citizen from bearing arms is illegal.



    Truly said, but then again we can't own class III firearms here in the Evergreen state, while our neighbors East and South of us can. What is ideal versus what is real. I'm looking forward to Heller's attorney's response to the DC brief, and how they take the anti's arguments apart. I have to think we will be able to photocopy them and come against most, if not allof the UNCONSTITUTIONAL gun control in the this country. IMHO

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    161

    Post imported post

    Read the way that the USSC phrased the question:



    The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Marble, Washington, USA
    Posts
    18

    Post imported post

    Jered wrote:
    Read the way that the USSC phrased the question:



    The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
    SCOTUS wants to rule as razor narrowly as they can but I think the bigger point is that anyreasoning that can successfully keep you from owning a handgun is used to outlaw the .50 Barrett. It seems the 800 lbs Gorilla is the question of does our constitution mean what it says, or is it made of rubber to fit what is en vogue with government today. The whole gun community is debating the ultimate implications of this ruling. A phrase I have seen on other boards, "If it weren't for guns, we'd be British"

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    "If it weren't for guns, we'd be British" Oh, I like that one!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •