• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

What Sort of Restrictions Should the 2A Have?

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Lots of good replies.

I won't rehash.

I'll just point out that government has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted to protect rights.

Mankind's political situation has been advancing for millenia, often paying in blood to wrest concessions in the form of rights from enobled, enroyaled, or otherwise empowered criminals (government). Somewhat recent high points: Magna Carta, abolishing the Star Chamber court, 1689 Declaration of Rights, Decl. of Independence, united States' constitutions just prior to the constitution, Bill of Rights, Thos. Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom.

Think about that for a minute. We're the high point, with a few other countries. There are still billions of people who do not even have close to the legal protections we have. Meaning, mankind still has billions of people to go in spreading rights upward and broader. And, yet some want to actually reverse the progress. Progress paid for in blood and sacrifice.

Whenever some court or congressgoon justifies an infringement because it will protect someone or save some lives, just recall how many died to get where we are today. The courts will rarely say, for example, that the few lives saved by DWI checkpoints, are far and away outweighed by the lives lost getting the freedom in the first place, and the cost in lives it will take to reaquire again the rights lost.


Can someone link Heller and McDonald. There is 2A history in there, and in the briefs.
 

OldCurlyWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2010
Messages
907
Location
Oklahoma
I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.
Thanks!

I can think of 3 (they are already in force at both state and federal levels)

1. No felons(very few exceptions)

2. No mental incompetents ( this includes those who are dangerous and those who do not have the mental capacity to understand.)

3. No non-resident aliens.


and NO. 4

NO politician who has voted for ANY gun control measure ever. Actually most of them belong under Numbers 1 & 2.

:cool:
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
I can think of 3 (they are already in force at both state and federal levels)

1. No felons(very few exceptions)

2. No mental incompetents ( this includes those who are dangerous and those who do not have the mental capacity to understand.)

3. No non-resident aliens.


and NO. 4

NO politician who has voted for ANY gun control measure ever. Actually most of them belong under Numbers 1 & 2.

:cool:

Oh, this is good. Very good. :)
 

Huck

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
646
Location
Evanston, Wyoming, USA
IMHO, ANY law or regulation that restricts or denies a Constitutionally guarenteed right IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! And therefore null and void! It dos'nt matter what right(s) we're talikng about, ALL rights shall not be infringed in any way, shape, or form!
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
I can think of 3 (they are already in force at both state and federal levels)

1. No felons(very few exceptions)
You then leave the definition of felony in the hands of those who would like to take away rights. How about "no guns for those who are imprisoned due to violent crime"?

2. No mental incompetents ( this includes those who are dangerous and those who do not have the mental capacity to understand.)
I can go with this one.

3. No non-resident aliens.
I think of self-defense via arms as a fundamental human right. This irks me, because it says "this right is fine unless you aren't from here". F' that.

and NO. 4

NO politician who has voted for ANY gun control measure ever. Actually most of them belong under Numbers 1 & 2.
<3
 
Last edited:

MedicineMan

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
117
Location
Marion, Mississippi, USA
NONE !!!!

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is so freakin unclear ???

If one likes restrictions, may I direct them to the several other countries where they are allowed by their founding documents.
I'm sure they would be happier there.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The Congressional Response

Back in February of 1982, Congress published a document entitled:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT
of the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
of the
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session
February 1982​

As is common in Congress, they thoroughly reviewed the matter, citing many sources, including historical documents stored in our Library of Congress, written by the Founding Fathers themselves, not to mention the historical roots of armed citizens spanning millennia, before coming up with a conclusion which I think will astound many of you.

I have attached that document, and encourage everyone to read pages 3 and 4, if not the whole thing. Page 14 is also noteworthy, as they very clearly state 2A as an individual right of the people while simultaneously differentiating the National Guard from the Constitutional intent of the word "militia."

Some notable quotes from their report:

1. The framers of the Bill of Rights consistently used the words "right of the people" to reflect individual rights — as when these words were used to recognize the "right of the people" to peaceably assemble, and the "right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures.

2. That the National Guard is not the "Militia" referred to in the second amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for the organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia". 65 This Congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the constitutional militia, which can be called forth only "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311(a).

3. In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.

The only thing they didn't explore is the term "well regulated." However, that term has been explored by many scholars, including a few cited by others in this thread. My take on this term stems from the fact that the term "regular" and "regulated" was often used during those times to refer to properly functioning machinery, including watches, which were often stamped "regulated" on the back to show they'd been designed and calibrated to keep proper time while being worn.

Interestingly, marketers for Metamucil, a psyllum-based product, used the term "regular" quite often in their commercials throughout the 20th century. They knew precisely what it meant, as did most of those purchasing the product.

How many of you have ever heard that we should "exercise regularly?" There's that term again, except that it's surived, carrying the same meaning today as it did in the mid to late 1700s.

A lot of people say it means "well-trained," but that implies a training program, and I believe that's a little off the mark. It certainly doesn't mean burdened with restrictive regulations, any of which are directly contrary to the same-clause prohibition "shall not be infringed."

I believe it means what it meant as used for both machinery as well as the human bowels throughout our nation's history: consistant; functioning normally. When it comes to firearms, that means both the firearm must be kept in good repair, properly adjusted to the shooter, and that the shooter must be proficient, an act difficult if not impossible to achieve when one is without a firearm with which one might practice.

Thus, from the above, we have three distinct, clear, and indisputable precepts contained in our Constitution's Second Amendment:

1. It's a right conferred individually, to the People.

2. The term militia referred to all able-bodied persons capable of protecting the security of a free state (beginning with themselves and their families and extending to the state as a whole).

3. It was expected that the People would both maintain and be proficient in the use of their firearms.

In fact, Virgina was so adament about this third part, as indicated on page 8, that it required its citizens to be armed, to bear arms in church, while travelling, to engage in target practice every Sunday, and if someone was too poor, the state would provide a firearm for you!

"In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statutes comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless the were "well armed"; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and "to bring their peeces to church." In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed."

Thus, our nation's history is that it wasn't seen as only a right, but a responsibility, as it created an environment in which law-abiding citizens could flourish, while few citizens who were law-breakers would be dealt with quickly, and their thinking at the time was that this referred to those holding public office just as assuredly as it referred to Farmer Joe down the road.
 

emk

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
23
Location
Corpus Christi
I would grant the government the power to regulate the flow of high explosives in large quantities (pretty much above what any ammunition would utilize), and the ability to restrict sales to those who are either VIOLENT felons or those being diagnosed by at least two independent medical doctors (not on the government's payroll) as being legally insane or otherwise mentally incompetent, i.e. those who are a danger to themselves or others, or by which they are unable to take care of themselves. SBRs and suppressors should not be regulated whatsoever, and I think there may be a case to be made for the regulation of automatic weapons, though it would be about as extensive as a background check, and that's about it.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Lots of good replies.

I won't rehash.

I'll just point out that government has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted to protect rights.

Mankind's political situation has been advancing for millenia, often paying in blood to wrest concessions in the form of rights from enobled, enroyaled, or otherwise empowered criminals (government). Somewhat recent high points: Magna Carta, abolishing the Star Chamber court, 1689 Declaration of Rights, Decl. of Independence, united States' constitutions just prior to the constitution, Bill of Rights, Thos. Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom.

Think about that for a minute. We're the high point, with a few other countries. There are still billions of people who do not even have close to the legal protections we have. Meaning, mankind still has billions of people to go in spreading rights upward and broader. And, yet some want to actually reverse the progress. Progress paid for in blood and sacrifice.

Whenever some court or congressgoon justifies an infringement because it will protect someone or save some lives, just recall how many died to get where we are today. The courts will rarely say, for example, that the few lives saved by DWI checkpoints, are far and away outweighed by the lives lost getting the freedom in the first place, and the cost in lives it will take to reaquire again the rights lost.


Can someone link Heller and McDonald. There is 2A history in there, and in the briefs.

An excellent post!
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
Firstly, the Second Amendment imposes no de facto restrictions at all. It's verbiage is quite clear as is its meaning. What has occurred over the past 220 years has been the introduction of the concept of interpretation. While the instant, or casual, observer/reader might pass this off as so much nonsense, in reality it is anything but. It is the "who and how" interpretation has manifested itself and thereby corrupting our founding documents to the point of having lost much of their original meaning and intent.

As for the term, "well regulated", it's meaning is not quite what some here have stated (again the concept of interpretation I imagine). Notice there is no hyphen between these words. That is significant. The actual meaning at the time of its writing was, "to keep and make regular" (source: Judge Napolitano). To keep and make regular.

SCJ Ginsburg (of all people) in a moment of honest judicial clarity put the 'milita' and 'bear arms' thing to bed... or so it should have...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F7Qk-ewm_BkJ:http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin/jud_pro/DC_v_Heller.pdf+to+bear+ginsburg+definition&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w

SCJ Ginsburg: "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

Clearly then, mode of carry was not and was never defined by the 2A; nor does it restrict a citizen from bearing arms independent of any military activity or action. I've posted this on this forum several times... but people have short memories. "‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket," is a right. Arms... no definition by type. Want more?

SCJ Scalia: "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed." "All instruments which constitute bearable arms..."

Where's the contrivance of permit/license clause? There is none. '...Shall not be infringed' is clear. The sole restriction of the 2A (or any other right) is the personal responsibility of the citizen bearing arms.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
SCJ Ginsburg (of all people) in a moment of honest judicial clarity put the 'milita' and 'bear arms' thing to bed... or so it should have...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:F7Qk-ewm_BkJ:http://www.poli-sci.utah.edu/~dlevin/jud_pro/DC_v_Heller.pdf+to+bear+ginsburg+definition&hl=en&gl=us&sig=AHIEtbTuvbisxDqL3k_QsWhZX8ZfbYyQ8w

SCJ Ginsburg: "At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” . . . Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."

Clearly then, mode of carry was not and was never defined by the 2A; nor does it restrict a citizen from bearing arms independent of any military activity or action. I've posted this on this forum several times... but people have short memories. "‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket," is a right. Arms... no definition by type. Want more?

SCJ Scalia: "The Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments which constitute bearable arms. The amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existance of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed." "All instruments which constitute bearable arms..."

Where's the contrivance of permit/license clause? There is none. '...Shall not be infringed' is clear. The sole restriction of the 2A (or any other right) is the personal responsibility of the citizen bearing arms.


While I wouldn't trust Ginsburg as far as I could throw her, and as skinny as she is I could probably throw her farther than I trust her, she came close with those statements. Scalia came closer in that he mentions the fact that the Bill of Rights recognizes rights which are ours by birth and which predate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment actually accomplishes three things in its wording.

1. It recognizes a natural right owned by the People.
2. It warns government that this right shall not be infringed.
3. It states the significance of a well regulated militia and what must exist for a militia to exist.

The Founders believed that an armed populous was so important, so crucial to the continuance of a free people and individual liberty, that they not only included this fact in nearly every state's constitution, but also frequently mentioned and talked about this in their writings. No government is immune from the silent creep of evil; not even ours. It was for this reason and one other that they saw fit to draft and write the Second Amendment. Remember, they had just thrown off the chains of an oppressive foreign government so their memories were fresh and for the most part, untainted.

Whenever I hear about or read the words of some political wonk who believes himself to be all knowing and wise in matters of state and social obligations, I refer to our Founder's words and what they had to say about like topics.
 

Walt_Kowalski

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
354
Location
Ashburn, Virginia, USA
I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.
Thanks!


Look up the term "verbicide". You commit verbicide when you apply the 20th century meaning of "regulate" to the word. Regulate at the time of the constitutions drafting meant 'alike, the same'.

Take the time to read and interpret the constitution as or forefathers did, and you will be pissed about where we are today.
 

bigdaddy1

Regular Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
1,320
Location
Southsider der hey
Hmm, to put something like "what part of shall not be infringed don't you understand" in your tag line must be some gun nut or zealot.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (this would involve a separate well trained, well supplied separate militia not beholding to the Federal government. This was intended to protect the STATE from possible tyranny of the FEDERAL government.), (notice the apostrophe after the work State) the right of the people (note the word people, not military, not police, not militia. Just,people)to keep (as in own, posses, have) and bear (as in carry) Arms (At the time written, arms meant swords, knives, pistols, long guns and other common weapons, even cannons were privately owned), shall not be infringed (uhm, what part of this don't you understand?)"
 
Last edited:

Robin47

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
545
Location
Susanville, California, USA
Lots of good replies.

I won't rehash.

I'll just point out that government has proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that it cannot be trusted to protect rights.

Mankind's political situation has been advancing for millenia, often paying in blood to wrest concessions in the form of rights from enobled, enroyaled, or otherwise empowered criminals (government). Somewhat recent high points: Magna Carta, abolishing the Star Chamber court, 1689 Declaration of Rights, Decl. of Independence, united States' constitutions just prior to the constitution, Bill of Rights, Thos. Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom.

Think about that for a minute. We're the high point, with a few other countries. There are still billions of people who do not even have close to the legal protections we have. Meaning, mankind still has billions of people to go in spreading rights upward and broader. And, yet some want to actually reverse the progress. Progress paid for in blood and sacrifice.

Whenever some court or congressgoon justifies an infringement because it will protect someone or save some lives, just recall how many died to get where we are today. The courts will rarely say, for example, that the few lives saved by DWI checkpoints, are far and away outweighed by the lives lost getting the freedom in the first place, and the cost in lives it will take to reaquire again the rights lost.


Can someone link Heller and McDonald. There is 2A history in there, and in the briefs.

Good post I agree !

However McDonald don't work in California, our own Constitution don't work here either.
This is really a lawless state, and very corrupt.
They will take a "Right" and turn it into a "Privilege" in a heart beat, for more power.
To prove that point, read it for yourself.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof, excepting
upon lands set aside for fish hatcheries, and no land owned by the
State shall ever be sold or transferred without reserving in the
people the absolute right to fish thereupon; and no law shall ever be
passed making it a crime for the people to enter upon the public
lands within this State for the purpose of fishing in any water
containing fish that have been planted therein by the State;
provided, that the legislature may by statute, provide for the season
when and the conditions under which the different species of fish
may be taken.

We were a "California Republic" it says so on our flag ! Sad day :( Robin47
 

petrophase

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
300
Location
Rapid City, South Dakota, USA
Our absolute right to life, liberty and property - including self defense - predates the constitution by as long as human beings have existed. The BoR did not create any rights, of course - and cannot limit them.

The only "reasonable" restriction is the obligation not to violate the equal right of any other human being. The law of non-aggression is the key here. We must guard the rights of others as carefully as our own.

The restrictions must come from self government, self control. The answer to those who refuse that and commit aggression against others is self and mutual defense.

I couldn't agree more. The issue goes beyond guns, the Bill of Rights, or the United States. An individual has the inherent right to self-defense, in any place, at any time.

But to address the question: the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. Not infringed. No infringement. None. Nothing.
 
Last edited:

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
Completely agree

Look up the term "verbicide". You commit verbicide when you apply the 20th century meaning of "regulate" to the word. Regulate at the time of the constitutions drafting meant 'alike, the same'.

Take the time to read and interpret the constitution as or forefathers did, and you will be pissed about where we are today.

The key to understanding the meaning of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is doing a little research. The internet has numerous copies of the original Webster dictionary, written in America, by someone who lived in those days. Gives some very interesting insight.
 
Top