Does Obama favor an all-out ban on handguns?

[Brixtonbulldog]

You know less about the 2nd Am than BrickZone. 

And yet, obviously more than you.  hmm..

[Hedgehog]

The Zionists control the COUNTRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everything is a conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah... yeah. Forgot about that one.

The Zionists have this protocol that controls how Rap music makes the black people kill each other, planes crash into the WTC, and I suppose the removal of the 2nd amendment is controlled by them as well.

Our only chance to fight off the Zionists is arm ourselves with plenty of guns, I swear to God!!!

[Decker]

Which is...drum roll...wrong. Babble snipped. Perhaps fabricate a new quote?

Again BrinkZone:  Fuck you.  I didn't create the ACLU quote.  And you still haven't explained why it is wrong.

Did you go through every court reporter in the country and cross out the fact that those cases use the Miller prinicple of group rights as the ACLU quote correctly points out?

You can't erase historical jurisprudence just b/c you and others disagree with it.

Is the American Bar Association also wrong? (I mean what do lawyers know about the law?)

"In Miller, the Court upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 on this basis. The Court read the “declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment” in conjunction with the Militia Clauses of Article I. 307 U.S. at 178 Thus, in the Court’s words:

"Well before 1939, the year Miller was decided, courts routinely refused to recognize that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to own, keep, and use weapons for self-defense....


...to execute the Laws of the
Union, suppress Insurrections and
repel Invasions; To provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining,
the Militia,...

With obvious purpose
to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of
such forces the declaration and

guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted
and applied with that end in view.

The fundamental holding of Miller, based on the conjunction of these provisions, is inescapable: the Second Amendment protects “possession or use” of a firearm only insofar as related to the “preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id. at 178.""
http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/DistrictofColumbiav.Heller.AmericanBarAssociationbrief.pdf

Do you see the case law history for how the courts interpret the 2nd Am and the right to bear arms? 

What's your proof?  So far, it's been that you disagree with that principle of gun rights as a group right.  Great.

I'll just take your protests for what they are:  delfections and avoidance of the matter at hand.

[Decker]

And yet, obviously more than you.  hmm..

Really.  Where's your list of legal cases dating back 60+ years affirming the Miller principle that gun ownership is a group right and not an individual right?

COURT DECISIONS SUPPORTING THE MILITIA
INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS
U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 (1997)
U.S. v. Baer, 235 F.2d 561 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978)
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918 (1976)
U.S. v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1641 (2001)
U.S. v. Finitz, 234 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 833 (2001)
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996)
U.S. v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2001)
U.S . Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995)
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993)
U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988)
Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972)
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972)
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116
(2000)
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863
(1983)
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973)
Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973)
U.S. v. Tot , 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943)
U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Cases, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub nom., Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S.
770 (1943)
U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
Golt v. City of Signal Hill, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
Olympic Arms v. Magaw, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Willbern, 2000 WL 554134 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2000)
U.S. v. Bournes, 105 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 1999), aff’d, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999)
U.S. v. Visnich, 65 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999)
U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996)
Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F.Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
U.S. v. Kruckel, 1993 WL 765648 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 1993)
Krisko v. Oswald, 655 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1987)
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 842 (1984)
Vietmanese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982)
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982)
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330. (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th
Cir. 1971)
STATE COURTS
Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)
State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989)
U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987)
Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)
Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.App. 1983)
City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio App. 1983)
State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982)
In Re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980)
State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976)
Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812 (1969)
Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967)

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf

[Brixtonbulldog]

Really.  Where's your list of legal cases dating back 60+ years affirming the Miller principle that gun ownership is a group right and not an individual right?

COURT DECISIONS SUPPORTING THE MILITIA
INTERPRETATION OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
U.S. SUPREME COURT
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
U.S. COURTS OF APPEALS
U.S. v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1007 (1997)
U.S. v. Baer, 235 F.2d 561 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978)
U.S. v. Swinton, 521 F.2d 1255 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 918 (1976)
U.S. v. Hancock, 231 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 1641 (2001)
U.S. v. Finitz, 234 F.3d 1278 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 121 S. Ct. 833 (2001)
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 912 (1996)
U.S. v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948 (8th Cir. 2001)
U.S . Farrell, 69 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1995)
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993)
U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 (8th Cir. 1988)
Cody v. U.S., 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972)
U.S. v. Decker, 446 F.2d 164 (8th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764 (8th Cir. 1971), vacated on other grounds, 404 U.S. 1009 (1972)
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1116
(2000)
Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863
(1983)
U.S. v. McCutcheon, 446 F.2d 133 (7th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Napier, 233 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976)
U.S. v. Day, 476 F.2d 562 (6th Cir. 1973)
Stevens v. U.S., 440 F.2d 144 (6th Cir. 1971)
U.S. v. Johnson, Jr., 441 F.2d 1134 (5th Cir. 1971)
Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995)
U.S. v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (4th Cir. 1974)
U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 807 (1997)
U.S. v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65 (3rd Cir. 1977)
Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839 (1973)
U.S. v. Tot , 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942), rev'd on other grounds, 319 U.S. 463 (1943)
U.S. v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115 (2d Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Friel, 1 F.3d 1231 (1st Cir. 1993)
Thomas v. City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41 (1st Cir. 1984)
U.S. v. Cases, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied sub nom., Velazquez v. U.S., 319 U.S.
770 (1943)
U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS
Golt v. City of Signal Hill, 132 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (C.D. Cal. 2001)
Olympic Arms v. Magaw, 91 F. Supp. 2d 1061 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Willbern, 2000 WL 554134 (D. Kan. Apr. 12, 2000)
U.S. v. Bournes, 105 F. Supp. 2d 736 (E.D. Mich. 2000)
U.S. v. Boyd, 52 F. Supp. 2d 1233 (D. Kan. 1999), aff’d, 211 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2000)
U.S. v. Henson, 55 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D. W. Va. 1999)
U.S. v. Visnich, 65 F. Supp. 2d 669 (N.D. Ohio 1999)
U.S. v. Caron, 941 F. Supp. 238 (D. Mass. 1996)
Moscowitz v. Brown, 850 F.Supp. 1185 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)
U.S. v. Kruckel, 1993 WL 765648 (D.N.J. Aug. 13, 1993)
Krisko v. Oswald, 655 F. Supp. 147 (E.D. Pa. 1987)
U.S. v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082 (D.N.H. 1981), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 842 (1984)
Vietmanese Fishermen's Association v. KKK, 543 F.Supp. 198 (S.D. Tex. 1982)
Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F.Supp. 297 (D. Utah 1982)
U.S. v. Kraase, 340 F.Supp. 147 (E.D. Wis. 1972)
U.S. v. Gross, 313 F.Supp. 1330. (S.D. Ind. 1970), aff'd on other grounds, 451 F.2d 1355 (7th
Cir. 1971)
STATE COURTS
Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 1993)
State v. Fennell, 382 S.E.2d 231 (N.C. 1989)
U.S. v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C.), cert. denied, 108 S.Ct. 193 (1987)
Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266 (Ill. 1984)
Masters v. State, 653 S.W.2d 944 (Tex.App. 1983)
City of East Cleveland v. Scales, 460 N.E.2d 1126 (Ohio App. 1983)
State v. Vlacil, 645 P.2d 677 (Utah 1982)
In Re Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396 (Minn. 1980)
State v. Rupp, 282 N.W.2d 125 (Iowa 1979)
Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976)
Burton v. Sills, 248 A.2d 521 (N.J. 1968), appeal dismissed, 394 U.S. 812 (1969)
Harris v. State, 432 P.2d 929 (Nev. 1967)

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/downloads/militiav.pdf

The rulings of progressive and increasingly activist courts have no actual bearing on the history and origins of the second amendment.  The intentions of the the founding fathers were obvious and even more pertinent today when cops are useless to prevent crime and almost every American will be a victim of violence once in their lifetime.

And funny how almost all those cases listed are from the 70's onward.. right about the time the anti-gun crusaders started crying and trying to deny a citizens right to self defense.

[Brixtonbulldog]

Just another two cents for you to think about.

The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that the plaintiff Heller—who applied for a handgun permit but was denied—had standing.

“ Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms", by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.[4] ”

The court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III):

“ To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia. ”

The court concluded:

“ Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. ”

The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:[5]

“ Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[Hedgehog]

The rulings of progressive and increasingly activist courts have no actual bearing on the history and origins of the second amendment.  The intentions of the the founding fathers were obvious and even more pertinent today when cops are useless to prevent crime and almost every American will be a victim of violence once in their lifetime.

And funny how almost all those cases listed are from the 70's onward.. right about the time the anti-gun crusaders started crying and trying to deny a citizens right to self defense.

I'm sure it's part of the Jewish conspiracy to take over USA.

Once "they've" stripped the whole USA of arms, "they" will get "control".

From "somewhere".

Thankfully we have the Montana Militia and NRA who sees through these evildoers who are trying to "deny a citizens right to self defense".


It's the "government".

[Brixtonbulldog]

I'm sure it's part of the Jewish conspiracy to take over USA.

Once "they've" stripped the whole USA of arms, "they" will get "control".

From "somewhere".

Thankfully we have the Montana Militia and NRA who sees through these evildoers who are trying to "deny a citizens right to self defense".


It's the "government".

Oh that's right.. I forgot that I was a Jew and partly responsible for that.  My bad.

[Decker]

The rulings of progressive and increasingly activist courts have no actual bearing on the history and origins of the second amendment.  The intentions of the the founding fathers were obvious and even more pertinent today when cops are useless to prevent crime and almost every American will be a victim of violence once in their lifetime.

And funny how almost all those cases listed are from the 70's onward.. right about the time the anti-gun crusaders started crying and trying to deny a citizens right to self defense.

How do you know the intentions of the Founding Fathers?  Did you ask them? 

Funny how you've listed no cases supporting  your personal prejudice re the 2nd AM.

Why does it bother you that the Courts have always held that the 2nd AM right to bear arms is a group right?

That's a seemingly plain innocuous fact.

[Decker]

Just another two cents for you to think about.

The court's opinion first addressed whether appellants have standing to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief in section II (slip op. at 5–12). The court concluded that the plaintiff Heller—who applied for a handgun permit but was denied—had standing.

“ Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as "functional firearms", by which they mean ones that could be "readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary" for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District's authority per se to require the registration of firearms.[4] ”

The court's summary of its substantive ruling on the right protected by the second amendment is given on page 46 of the slip opinion (at the end of section III):

“ To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Antifederalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia. ”

The court concluded:

“ Once it is determined - as we have done - that handguns are 'Arms' referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them ... That is not to suggest that the government is absolutely barred from regulating the use and ownership of pistols. The protections of the Second Amendment are subject to the same sort of reasonable restrictions that have been recognized as limiting, for instance, the First Amendment. ”

The court also struck down the portion of the law that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." The District argued that there is an implicit self-defense exception to these provisions, but the D.C. Circuit rejected this view, saying that the requirement amounted to a complete ban on functional firearms and prohibition on use for self-defense:[5]

“ Section 7-2507.02, like the bar on carrying a pistol within the home, amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it unconstitutional.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

The Heller case is the epitome of Judicial Activism.

It flies in the face of almost seventy years of stare decisis.

The NRA is sure getting a bang for its buck.

Glad to see this rogue court break with 60+ years of caselaw tradition.

Did you read the ABA's amicus brief?

It makes for good reading.

[Brixtonbulldog]

The Heller case is the epitome of Judicial Activism.

It flies in the face of almost seventy years of stare decisis.

The NRA is sure getting a bang for its buck.

Glad to see this rogue court break with 60+ years of caselaw tradition.

Did you read the ABA's amicus brief?

It makes for good reading.

The Bar (which also has a leftist history) shouldn't be the authority.. the constitution as the intentions of the founding fathers is.  It is the activism since the 70's that has flown in the face of the bill of rights.

[Brixtonbulldog]

How do you know the intentions of the Founding Fathers?  Did you ask them? 

Funny how you've listed no cases supporting  your personal prejudice re the 2nd AM.

Why does it bother you that the Courts have always held that the 2nd AM right to bear arms is a group right?

That's a seemingly plain innocuous fact.

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
Introduction
The Second Amendment:

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.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

 

Evidence of an Individual Right

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)

(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)

Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.
(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)

Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

The next amendment is: "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."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
Story adds:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (See Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)
The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.

More Evidence Supporting an Individual Right

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).
Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
The Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Here, like Story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.

The Federalist Papers Continued – "The Original Right of Self-Defense"

The Founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort.

"The original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction. We now examine Hamilton's Federalist No. 28. Hamilton begins:

That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.
Hamilton continues:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:
[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the Second Amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (For more on militia see: http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html.)

Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:


When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.
Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."

Connecting the Dots...


"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
Although the Federalist Papers were written prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (but after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.

The Purpose of the Militia Clause


"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))
For more information about justification clauses see: Volokh, Eugene, The Commonplace Second Amendment, (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998)). (See also, Kopel, David, Words of Freedom, National Review Online, May 16, 2001.)

Parting Shots

There are 3 ways the Second Amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:

It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.
The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.
The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.
Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period (see Guncite's Is there contrary evidence? and Second Amendment challenge).

Instead of the "right of the people," the Amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, see GunCite's page here showing evidence that the term, "people," as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals.)

It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the Founding period is the one interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.

Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a Second Amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.

(The assertion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right should not be confused with the claim that all gun control is un-constitutional. However, to read why many gun rights advocates oppose most gun controls, today, please see GunCite's, Misrepresenting the Gun Control Debate.)

[Decker]

The Bar (which also has a leftist history) shouldn't be the authority.. the constitution as the intentions of the founding fathers is.  It is the activism since the 70's that has flown in the face of the bill of rights.

If you read the ABA amicus brief, you would see that the group rights interpretation of the 2 AM right to bear arms predates the 1939 MIller case but Miller emphasized the militia part of the 2nd Am in its opinion almost every subsequent case has followed that judicial reasoning.

"Judicial activism" is not when a court holds contrary to your opinion of how a principle should be exercised.  Judicial Activism occurs when a court overturns or ignores decades of caselaw....such as holding that the 2nd Am confers an individual right to bear arms.

That's what we have with Heller.  I am surprised that such a harmless fact causes you such irritation.

[Decker]

Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
Introduction
The Second Amendment:

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.
The original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Although the amendment emphasizes the need for a militia, membership in any militia, let alone a well-regulated one, was not intended to serve as a prerequisite for exercising the right to keep arms.

The Second Amendment preserves and guarantees an individual right for a collective purpose. That does not transform the right into a "collective right." The militia clause was a declaration of purpose, and preserving the people's right to keep and bear arms was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

There is no contrary evidence from the writings of the Founding Fathers, early American legal commentators, or pre-twentieth century Supreme Court decisions, indicating that the Second Amendment was intended to apply solely to active militia members.

 

Evidence of an Individual Right

In his popular edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803), St. George Tucker (see also), a lawyer, Revolutionary War militia officer, legal scholar, and later a U.S. District Court judge (appointed by James Madison in 1813), wrote of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
In the appendix to the Commentaries, Tucker elaborates further:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty... The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.
"Because '[g]reat weight has always been attached, and very rightly attached, to contemporaneous exposition,' the Supreme Court has cited Tucker in over forty cases. One can find Tucker in the major cases of virtually every Supreme Court era." (Source: The Second Amendment in the Nineteenth Century)

(William Blackstone was an English jurist who published Commentaries on the Laws of England, in four volumes between 1765 and 1769. Blackstone is credited with laying the foundation of modern English law and certainly influenced the thinking of the American Founders.)

Another jurist contemporaneous to the Founders, William Rawle, authored "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829). His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point and other institutions. In Chapter 10 he describes the scope of the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
This is another quote where it is obvious that "the people" refers to individuals since Rawle writes neither the states nor the national government has legitimate authority to disarm its citizens. This passage also makes it clear ("the prohibition is general") that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the scope of the right.
(In 1791 William Rawle was appointed United States Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington, a post he held for more than eight years.)

Yet another jurist, Justice Story (appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice by James Madison in 1811), wrote a constitutional commentary in 1833 ("Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States"). Regarding the Second Amendment, he wrote (source):

The next amendment is: "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."
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

As the Tennessee Supreme Court in Andrews v. State (1871) explains, this "passage from Story, shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to, and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
Story adds:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
Story laments the people's lack of enthusiasm for maintaining a well-regulated militia. However, some anti-gun rights advocates misinterpret this entire passage as being "consistent with the theory that the Second Amendment guarantees a right of the people to be armed only when in service of an organized militia." (See Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment for an example of reaching that conclusion by committing a non-sequitur.)
The need for a well-regulated militia and an armed citizenry are not mutually exclusive, nor was the right to have arms considered dependent on membership in an active militia (more on that later). Rather, as illustrated by Tucker, Rawle, and Story, the militia clause and the right to arms were intended to be complementary.

More Evidence Supporting an Individual Right

After James Madison's Bill of Rights was submitted to Congress, Tench Coxe (see also: Tench Coxe and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 1787-1823) published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," in the Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 He asserts that it's the people (as individuals) with arms, who serve as the ultimate check on government:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
"A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear 'their private arms.' The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights." (Halbrook, Stephen P. "The Right of the People or the Power of the State Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment". Originally published as 26 Val. U. L.Rev. 131-207, 1991).
Earlier, in The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, while the states were considering ratification of the Constitution, Tench Coxe wrote:

Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
The Federalist Papers

Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29, did not view the right to keep arms as being confined to active militia members:

What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
James Madison in Federalist No. 46 wrote:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.
Here, like Story, Madison is expressing the idea that additional advantages accrue to the people when the citizens' right to arms is enhanced by having an organized and properly directed militia.

The Federalist Papers Continued – "The Original Right of Self-Defense"

The Founders realized insurrections may occur from time to time and it is the militia's duty to suppress them. They also realized that however remote the possibility of usurpation was, the people with their arms, had the right to restore their republican form of government by force, if necessary, as an extreme last resort.

"The original right of self-defense" is not a modern-day concoction. We now examine Hamilton's Federalist No. 28. Hamilton begins:

That there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes exist in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government) has no place but in the reveries of these political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
Hamilton explains that the national government may occasionally need to quell insurrections and it is certainly justified in doing so.
Hamilton continues:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Hamilton clearly states there exists a right of self-defense against a tyrannical government, and it includes the people with their own arms and adds:
[T]he people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!
Thus the militia is the ultimate check against a state or the national government. That is why the founders guaranteed the right to the people as opposed to only active militia members or a state's militia. But of course, via the militia clause, the Second Amendment acknowledges, as well, the right of a state to maintain a militia. (For more on militia see: http://guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html.)

Hamilton concludes, telling us the above scenario is extremely unlikely to occur:


When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire, who are in a situation, through the medium of their State governments, to take measures for their own defense, with all the celerity, regularity, and system of independent nations? The apprehension may be considered as a disease, for which there can be found no cure in the resources of argument and reasoning.
Again, it is the recurring theme of the people's right to keep and bear arms as individuals, enhanced by a militia system, that (in part) provides for the "security of a free state."

Connecting the Dots...


"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "
--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)
Although the Federalist Papers were written prior to the drafting of the Bill of Rights (but after the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification), the passages quoted, above, help explain the relationships that were understood between a well-regulated militia, the people, their governments, and the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment did not declare or establish any new rights or novel principles.

The Purpose of the Militia Clause


"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))
For more information about justification clauses see: Volokh, Eugene, The Commonplace Second Amendment, (73 NYU L. Rev. 793 (1998)). (See also, Kopel, David, Words of Freedom, National Review Online, May 16, 2001.)

Parting Shots

There are 3 ways the Second Amendment is usually interpreted to deny it was intended to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms:

It protects a state's right to keep and bear arms.
The right is individual, but limited to active militia members because the militia clause narrows the right's scope.
The term "people" refers to the people collectively, rather than the people as individuals.
Yet, three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period (see Guncite's Is there contrary evidence? and Second Amendment challenge).

Instead of the "right of the people," the Amendment's drafters could have referred to the militia or active militia members, as they did in the Fifth Amendment, had they meant to restrict the right. (Additionally, see GunCite's page here showing evidence that the term, "people," as used in the Bill of Rights, referred to people as individuals.)

It strains credulity to believe the aforementioned three jurists misconstrued the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The only model that comports with all of the evidence from the Founding period is the one interpreting the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right for a collective purpose. The militia clause and the right to keep and bear arms were intended to be complementary.

Perversely, gun rights defenders are accused of creating a Second Amendment myth, when it is some present-day jurists and historians who have failed to give a full account of the historical record.

(The assertion that the Second Amendment was intended to protect an individual right should not be confused with the claim that all gun control is un-constitutional. However, to read why many gun rights advocates oppose most gun controls, today, please see GunCite's, Misrepresenting the Gun Control Debate.)

That's a wonderful piece of deconstructive detective work re the original intent behind the 2AM.  And it was a pleasure to read.

Unfortunately for that, the US Constitution is a 'living document' that adapts to the times.  No longer are men armed with muskets.  ("Implied powers" also rule the roost--See the writings of John Marshall on this one.)

Laws are interpreted from today's point of view and they change when the times call for change.

It is the job of the SCT to tell us what the law is.  In Miller (1939) It told us that the militia part of the 2nd AM qualifies the right to bear arms.

[w8tlftr]

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.

Decker, why do you think the founding fathers used the word "people" and not "state"?

I'm just curious because I had read that one of the Supreme Court justices (I can't recall who) asked that question.

[Decker]

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.

Decker, why do you think the founding fathers used the word "people" and not "state"?

I'm just curious because I had read that one of the Supreme Court justices (I can't recall who) asked that question.

B/c the people have a constitutional right to own the property of a gun.  But that right is directly tied to "A well regulated Militia".

I don't think that the 2A's interpretation as group or individual right makes any difference at all.  I just like the way it sets people off.

The whole ball game comes down to Judicial scrutiny of legislation regulating (in some cases banning) guns.  Currently the SCT uses the lowest level of scrutiny of that legislation:  the law must be reasonably related to a legitimate state interest to pass muster.

That's a very very low threshhold.

I don't think an individual right to own a gun will change that level of scrutiny.

The 2nd Am can also be read as an absolute grant of right to own arms.  Does that include Bazookas or nuclear arms?

[Hedgehog]

According to Lenke (1989) up to 86% of the shooters and 75% of the victims were intoxicated with alcohol or on other drugs.

Research also shows that the deadly violence is, unlike what NRA and other pro-2nd amendment groups want to tell us, mostly commited within the nearest social community.

Ie, friends, family and near-community.


So the offenders are those who gets drunk.

How are you gonna trust anyone with 20 guns at home and who is drunk and pissed because his best friend Billy-Moe just fcuked his daughter?

[Brixtonbulldog]

According to Lenke (1989) up to 86% of the shooters and 75% of the victims were intoxicated with alcohol or on other drugs.

Research also shows that the deadly violence is, unlike what NRA and other pro-2nd amendment groups want to tell us, mostly commited within the nearest social community.

Ie, friends, family and near-community.


So the offenders are those who gets drunk.

How are you gonna trust anyone with 20 guns at home and who is drunk and pissed because his best friend Billy-Moe just fcuked his daughter?

Well if I were Billy-Moe I would much rather have a gun to defend myself from this raging alcoholic ass than not have one.  That's the point.

[MidniteRambo]

"Collective rights" - Oh sure, I've read about it in history class, it's called "Communism"!

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"-Karl Marx (1875 Critique of the Gotha Program).

[Hedgehog]

Well if I were Billy-Moe I would much rather have a gun to defend myself from this raging alcoholic ass than not have one.  That's the point.

With stricter gun laws, Billy-Moe wouldn't have his guns in the first place? 

Research also shows that illegal guns are held by criminals. And contrary to what the gun lobby preaches, these criminals primarily kills within their own community.

Which means that if you would make the gun laws tougher, it would not mean some sudden increase in gangs killing civilians.

I can understand if people wants to own guns because they think shooting them are cool and shit.

But just because you like doing something, it doesn't make it in the best interest of the society.

Eg drinking and driving.

[Brixtonbulldog]

With stricter gun laws, Billy-Moe wouldn't have his guns in the first place? 

Research also shows that illegal guns are held by criminals. And contrary to what the gun lobby preaches, these criminals primarily kills within their own community.

Which means that if you would make the gun laws tougher, it would not mean some sudden increase in gangs killing civilians.

I can understand if people wants to own guns because they think shooting them are cool and shit.

But just because you like doing something, it doesn't make it in the best interest of the society.

Eg drinking and driving.

Tell that to the unarmed victims of rape, murder, assault, or burglary in thier own homes.  Thinking you have a right to take away anothers right to self-defense in the name of "what's best for society" is the definition of an asshole.

Libs keep passing tougher gun laws and violent crime stays the same or gets worse.  Maybe it's time to actually enforce the laws in the books.

[240 is Back]

Tell that to the unarmed victims of rape, murder, assault, or burglary in thier own homes.  Thinking you have a right to take away anothers right to self-defense in the name of "what's best for society" is the definition of an asshole.

Libs keep passing tougher gun laws and violent crime stays the same or gets worse.  Maybe it's time to actually enforce the laws in the books.

I agree completely.  I'm starting to like you.

If you live in the USA, you don't give a shit about what happens to 99.999999% of the population.  You want to be able to defend you and yours when a bad thing happens.

bad guys don't need guns to hurt/kill you.  Three men with tire irons or 10 pound weight plates can kill you with no problem. 

I'll bet there are thousands of people every year whose final thought on the planet is "Damn, I'm about to die, and if I had a gun I could have prevented this".  They don't care what happens to "society" as they bleed out.

[MidniteRambo]

I can understand if people wants to own guns because they think shooting them are cool and shit.

Talk about misunderstanding why people own guns.  You mights as well ay they are "clinging" to guns (don't forget religion) because they are pissed that they lost their jobs.

I own a gun to protect my family, I don't think its cool to shoot and hope I never have to.

As far as criminals, by definition, a criminal is one that breks the law, if they don't follow laws, why would they follow gun laws? 

[Hedgehog]

Tell that to the unarmed victims of rape, murder, assault, or burglary in thier own homes.  Thinking you have a right to take away anothers right to self-defense in the name of "what's best for society" is the definition of an asshole.

Libs keep passing tougher gun laws and violent crime stays the same or gets worse.  Maybe it's time to actually enforce the laws in the books.

Definition of an asshole?

Tell the widows and the kids to all the victims of gun-related shootings that they are assholes for not wanting guns to be out there.

When the killings are done by persons with guns who happens to get drunk.

What if these persons wouldn't have the guns in the first place?

[Brixtonbulldog]

Definition of an asshole?

Tell the widows and the kids to all the victims of gun-related shootings that they are assholes for not wanting guns to be out there.

When the killings are done by persons with guns who happens to get drunk.

What if these persons wouldn't have the guns in the first place?

The guns aren't going away with new gun laws.  All that happens is criminals who don't care have guns while citizens who need to defend themselves are stripped by ASSHOLES who take away thier right to defend themselves.

It's not "gun" related shootings.. it's "criminal" related shootings.  A gun is just an object.  Thinking "What if these persons wouldn't have the guns in the first place?" is ignorant and idealistic wishful thinking.

I would go so far as to say single woman who meet certain criteria (no criminal record, etc) should be encouraged to be armed at all times.