• 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?

mag71911

New member
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
8
Location
Olivet, Michigan, 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!
 

gsx1138

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
882
Location
Bremerton, Washington, United States
We should be able to carry what firearm we want, where we want, when we want. There should be no such thing as an NFA item. "Well regulated" refers to citizens banding together to form militias for the defense of the country. I could be wrong but I don't think the Constitution is there to give the Federal Government power.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Any restriction which appreciably adds any difficulty in obtaining, owning, or carrying a personal weapon that could also double, in a pinch, as a personal military weapon would be unreasonable. Restrictions that do not impede obtaining, owning, or carrying, but have a societal benefit, would be reasonable.

To give examples of what I think are reasonable or not: Alabama requires a license to conceal. No license is required to openly carry. I do not see this as unreasonable since, if I choose not to get a license, I can still obtain, own, and carry my firearm. Unfortunately, Alabama requires that license to carry in a car, openly or concealed. Since that regulation add significant difficulty to carrying, I see it as unreasonable.

[This post was not meant to derail the thread with a discussion of the reasonableness of licensing concealment, just to illustrate my opinion of "reasonable."]
 

Freedom First

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
845
Location
Kennewick, Wa.
There is a clear difference between OC and Militia in 2A

"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." Second Amendment, Bill of Rights

IMO Firearms ownership, transport, and OC/CC are an inferred and a stated Right in the Second Amendment. 2A assumes private ownership of firearms is a normal part of life. When the Bill of Rights was written the States were defended and policed by their own Militias. The Militia, well regulated, is a State's Right to protect itself from lawbreakers, invaders or tyrants. So I would suggest that you look at it in that view.

OC in 2A is about a Citizen of the US and their home State being able to protect themselves from threats to their safety and security. Should a law abiding, tax paying, rule following Citizen be restricted in his ability to protect himself, his wife, his kids and his property? I say no.

The real Militia has been subsumed into the National Guard over the last 100+ years and is no longer a functional arm of the State. Should a State be disarmed in the face of impending invasion from either an external force or an internal tyrant? I again say no.

Look at Arizona and then read the following...

"No State shall, ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay." Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution

Am I suggesting that Jan Brewer declare war on Mexico? Nope. Just pointing out that a State, led by a Governor who has read and understands the US and State Constitutions is left with the duty to defend his/her State from invasion but today has no tools left to do so.

Since Wilson nationalized the State Guards as the National Guard, the States have been forced to rely on the Central Government for their defense. If Jan had her Militia, she could place them on the border with Mexico and stop the flow of illegals into her state. While that would force the issue at the international level, at least she would be able to do something to protect her State and it's people. Now she has to beg DC for troops which puts her in a subservient role to the central government which is not the intention of the Constitution.

Wow, OT again... Just part of the fun of being me I guess. :monkey
 

MamaLiberty

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2006
Messages
894
Location
Newcastle, Wyoming, 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.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
The "well regulated" part refers to the Militia(i.e. State's protection), not the "right" of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Many anti's wish to bring in the "well regulated" to say the government has the power to place restrictions on the "right" of the individual. They are two different things. The founders basically enumerated that the citizen has the right to keep and bear arms(i.e. self preservation) and from that individual right the state draws a communal protection(and power). In other words if the people who make up a State aren't allowed to protect themselves, they cannot protect the State.
 

GLOCK21GB

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
4,347
Location
Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
The "well regulated" part refers to the Militia(i.e. State's protection), not the "right" of the citizen to keep and bear arms. Many anti's wish to bring in the "well regulated" to say the government has the power to place restrictions on the "right" of the individual. They are two different things. The founders basically enumerated that the citizen has the right to keep and bear arms(i.e. self preservation) and from that individual right the state draws a communal protection(and power). In other words if the people who make up a State aren't allowed to protect themselves, they cannot protect the State.

Back when the words " well Regulated" were penned in to the sacred document....well regulated meant (( Well Supplied )) as in the local Gov should make available Powder & shot for easy access... It did not mean that the Gov should make a bunch of laws restricting it.

But over time the original meaning & intent of the word - REGULATED - has been lost in translation.
 

SavageOne

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
577
Location
SEMO, , USA
Back when the words " well Regulated" were penned in to the sacred document....well regulated meant (( Well Supplied )) as in the local Gov should make available Powder & shot for easy access... It did not mean that the Gov should make a bunch of laws restricting it.

But over time the original meaning & intent of the word - REGULATED - has been lost in translation.


So, the Gov should make cheap and plentiful ammo available for me......SWEEEEEET..... when do we get back to that!!!!!!
 

LV XD9

Regular Member
Joined
May 4, 2010
Messages
145
Location
Henderson, Nevada, 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!

I like this explanation...
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
The idea of "reasonable restrictions" that the Courts have upheld is just a sneaky back-door way to keep unconstitutional gun control laws in place. We see over and over--in cases like Heller and Mcdonald--that even though OUR SIDE wins the case, the victory is meaningless because the courts always let "reasonable restriction" stand. And to the people who want to control YOU, any sort of restriction on firearms is "reasonable"

Bloomberg, Daley, Helmke, etc... They don't really care about crime, or guns, or violence. They care about CONTROLLING the populace. Taking firearms away frm law-abiding citizens lets them do that.

When the law-abiding citizens of this nation--on the "left" and the "right" --realize that "gun control" has nothign to do with "guns" and EVERYTHING to do with "control", perhaps we can turn the tide in the favor of Freedom, Liberty and a Rule of Law.

But as long as we allow the "gun control" argument to be about guns and violence, instead of forcing the hand of the anti's and showing that it's REALLY all about control of the law-abiding, we will be fighting an uphill battle...

My opinion on "gun control"?

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they get?
 

Gunslinger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
3,853
Location
Free, Colorado, 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!

"Well regulated militia" has been held to not be the operant clause in the Amendment. That is settled law. Therefore, "shall not be infringed" answers your question. Just as case law limits the 1st Amendment, "not yell 'fire' in a crowded theater," so will (does) it for the 2nd Amendment as currently with respect to concealed carry, felons, mental incompetents, etc. The Amendments are all intended to apply to the average citizen, not 'all' residents of the US.
 
Last edited:

SouthernBoy

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

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
I will accept one restriction and one restriction ONLY....

That one obtained the WEAPON (as the 2nd amendment does not say "GUN" it says "ARMS") in a legal manner (THE POSSESSOR DID NOT STEAL IT or know that the legal owner has been illegally or unconstitutionally deprived in any way of the weapon!)

Repeal the 1934 firearms tax law, the 1968 Federal gun regulations, the 1996 anti gun laws AND ANY AND ALL OTHER "INFRINGEMENT" of the PEOPLES RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!

I would encourage one to be proficient and safe in their handling and usage of a weapon BUT I WILL NOT SUPPORT ANY LOCAL, STATE, or FEDERAL regulation, rule, or law the would in any way REQUIRE SAME!
 

wrightme

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2008
Messages
5,574
Location
Fallon, Nevada, 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!
Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
...
 

deanf

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2007
Messages
1,789
Location
N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
The "well regulated" clause is not binding. It doesn't matter what it means. The "well regulated" clause does not delegate any authority to the government, and the government has no authority that is not delegated to it.

All government power is delegated to the government from the people. The people still retain the delegated powers. We have delegated to the government to power to own and operate military arms, yet we retain that power. Yes, right up to and including the most destructive weapons man can design.

It's a simple flow of legal authority.
 
Top