Scotus rules 2nd amendment is an individual right

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

Isn't the 2nd the least clear of all the amendments?

---

Not at all. That's why there haven't been that many lawsuits regarding it.What part of "well regulated militia" is so difficult to understand?

quote:

---

I don't agree that it is based specifically on the need for "a well regulated militia."

---

Even though it directly says so? So when an amendment specifically says it is about a militia, we can just ignore it?

quote:

---

The 2nd doesn't explicitly say that the right to arms is specifically for the militia

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you? So when the amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," it isn't actually talking about a militia. That word "militia" isn't actually in the amendment. It's just a "liberal" plot.

quote:

---

it doesn't say that we don't have a right to self-defense, hunting, pleasure shooting, etc.

---

And since I never said that, one wonders why you're bringing it up. See, this is why you have to actually read the posts before you respond. The amendment is justifying why you have a right to a gun and the reason that it gives is not hunting, self-defense, pleasure shooting, etc. Instead, it says that the reason you are allowed to have a gun is so that you can use it in defense of the State.That doesn't mean you don't have any rights to hunting, self-defense, pleasure shooting, etc. The Constitution is not a laundry list. The Ninth Amendment is still there: There are rights not enumerated that are still protected. What it means is that the right specifically mentioned in the Second Amendment is there because of the need for a militia. Remember, States are independent nations unto themselves, to a degree. The military does not have jurisdiction within the borders of the US. That's what the militia is for.

quote:

---

in general, you seem to be basing you interpretation on your conclusion rather than visa versa.

---

Incorrect. I am basing my interpretation on the direct statement of the amendment:A well regulated militia.Since it directly says that it is talking about a militia, how does one justify ignoring that when interpreting the text? Here is the text of the Fourth Amendment: Where is the justification for why we have this amendment? It isn't in the text. We have it "just because." The Second Amendment, however, justifies itself: It does not start with an ellipsis.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You are not a militia.

---

​

Why not?

---

Because you are not well regulated. Because you shooting an intruder or hunting or going to the shooting range is not an act of defending the State. Your right to own a gun is justified by you being called up to defend the State as part of the militia.

quote:

---

So if I am a part of the militia, then its all good.

---

That's what the National Guard is for. By statute, they are the "militia."This gets back to the status of DC. The District of Columbia is not a State. Since the Second Amendment is about the militia coming to the defense of the State ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"), how does that apply to a region that is not a State?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist responds to me:

quote:

---

What constitutes the "militia"

---

Currently? According to statute (which Congress has the right to do), it's the National Guard.

quote:

---

how is it "regulated"

---

By statute.

quote:

---

and at what point does it become regulated "well"?

---

When the Legislature passes the statutes.

quote:

---

pretty much the whole thing is ambiguous.

---

On the contrary, it is quite specific. Surely you're not saying that the only way to understand it is if statutes were written in, akin to the Seventh Amendment's right to jury if the amount in question is twenty dollars, are you?

quote:

---

The perfatory clause sets up the principle behind it but doesn't base the right specifically on it.

---

Even though it specifically says so? So when an amendment specifically states that it is talking about a militia, it really isn't?The prefatory clause does exactly what it claims it doesn't do: Base the right specifically on it. That's the entire reason for it to exist. If it weren't, then the amendment would start with an ellipsis.And yet, no matter how much you may wish it did, it starts with a phrase that specifically tells you what it means.

quote:

---

The right to arms is for the people, not for the militia.

---

Yes...in service of the militia. Your right to have a gun is not for your purposes. It's for the purpose of the State. Thus, the State has the right to regulate what guns meet that requirement.

quote:

---

Right, it starts with a perfatory clause which is the "justification".

---

But that directly contradcits your claim that "it but doesn't base the right specifically on it." Which is it?

quote:

---

But rights don't need to be justified

---

Irrelevant. Just because they don't "need" to be doesn't mean they can't be. The entire Constitution is set up via a justification.

quote:

---

The amendment is not meant to say that the people need guns just so they can have a militia.

---

Not "just." "Because." That's exactly what it says, exactly why it was made, and exactly how it has been interpreted up until now.That's why State Constitutions go further. The Wyoming Constitution section on guns reads, "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied."

quote:

---

Besides, the amendment was all kinds of chopped up and reworded and misworded.

---

No, it wasn't. Do not confuse modern grammar with that of 200 years ago.

quote:

---

It doesn't necessarily say that the reason that people need arms is for the militia.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?You mean that part about the militia being necessary can be simply ignored? The Second Amendment does not begin with an ellipsis. It specifically states that the reason people need arms is for a militia.

quote:

---

It is just justifying the need by providing one reason that having arms is a good thing.

---

Indeed. And that means if we're going to be talking about other justifications for bearing arms, we're not going to find any help in the Second Amendment. The only justification to be found there is with regard to the militia.

quote:

---

That was just the one justification that was used

---

And thus the only one that it speaks to.

quote:

---

but it doesn't limit the right to just for the militia

---

The only justification it provides is limited to the militia. If you think there's another justification for owning a gun, you're going to have to look elsewhere.

quote:

---

and the justification wasn't even needed in the first place.

---

Irrelevant. Just because it doesn't "need" to be there doesn't it can't be.The Second Amendment does not start with an ellipsis.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

AZPaul3 responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

The amendment is justifying why you have a right to a gun and the reason that it gives is not hunting, self-defense, pleasure shooting, etc. Instead, it says that the reason you are allowed to have a gun is so that you can use it in defense of the State.

---

​

Exactly right. And this was the Court's reasoniong in recognizing the 2nd Amendment as embodying an "individual" right to keep and bear arms.

---

But that flies in the face of all previous decisions regarding the Second Amendment. You don't have an individual right to a gun. You have a collective right. That means you don't have a right to a gun for your, individual needs. Instead, you have a right to a gun for the collective needs of the State.According to the Second Amendment.

quote:

---

The question now turns on whether that "right" is necessary any longer in our modern society.

---

Not at all. Even if the State comes up with its own defense mechanism, that can fail and the people will be called upon to defend the State.And Scalia's claim that "We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach" seems to forget all about the First Amendment. It's called the "Lemon test."But then again, Scalia isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.

quote:

---

The Court's ruling, as you yourself have acknowledged, is correct.

---

Incorrect. I have said the exact opposite. The Court's ruling is fundamentally flawed. The Second Amendment does not say what Scalia claims. Note, even Scalia sees that he's screwed it up because he goes out of his way to point out that this ruling doesn't affect other rulings about the regulation of arms.When you have to point out that your ruling which completely contradicts all previous rulings isn't supposed to be interpreted to mean that it contradicts all previous rulings, then you know you've screwed up somewhere.

quote:

---

For the purposes of forming a militia the people have an indiviual right to keep and bear arms.

---

All previous rulings have said that it is a collective right. Scalia's attempt to show those previous rulings wrong (and they very well might have been...decisions are made by people and people make mistakes) is laughable: He tries to do it backwards, starting with the conclusion and forcing the premises to fit...which means that the "prefatory" clause doesn't actually mean what it directly states.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.