The Second Amendment

What case are you citing from 2001?

I think there is support for the idea that the second amendment originally reflected the proposition that the federal government was the most likely source of governmental abuse, and that the separate states were the preserver of rights. The Georgia state militia was supposed to protect Georgians from a federal government dominated by a bunch of New Yorkers.The constitution did set up a strong federal government. The Bill of rights was an add on to spell out some specific things that belonged to the states. But the bill or rights simply did not spell out any limits on state government. At least not until the 14th amendment and incorporation.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I see you've drawn a jeer.I find the need to jeer statements of fact pretty interesting. Is reality itself being jeered?It is true that there are more CCTV cameras monitored by police in the UK than anywhere else, but there are also thousands such cameras in cites like Chicago and New York. The fourth amendment is absolutely no bar to installing cameras on public streets.

States can write what they want into their laws. The above language is feel good legislation, but most likely futile. Unless the state bars the export and import of guns, and likely they cannot Constitutionally do so, the Interstate commerce Clause (and the Supremacy Clause which prevents states from ignoring federal law) will apply to the gun trade in that state based on the theory that even local gun sales affect the national gun market. I note that the Commerce Clause has been found to apply to food grown at home for personal use.

We know that there is an individual right to bear arms present in the second amendment. The questions are, the scope and purpose of the individual right, the application of that right to the states, and the level of constitutional scrutiny required for federal and state laws which affect or limit personal rights on guns. In other words, what guns, maintained how, and carried when?I'd be interested in discussing the federalist papers. For example in this often quote mined statement from James Madison, it seems clear that the right to bear arms is closely related to the benefits of having a state militia, with state officials in charge. Why is so obvious that Madison's statement is inconsistent with the state having the right to pass gun control laws..

quote:

---

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, and by which the militia officers are appointed, 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.

---

Fair enough. Yes, but even that would tie the right to bear arms closely to the benefits of having a state militia. Not quite. The idea lampooned here is that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to empower individuals or small groups would take on the federal government and that such a need justifies individuals having matching fire power at home. Some people even expressed the idea that democracy could not exist without this matching power. Jon expanded on that idea to argue that the Wilmington Massacre was democracy in action.Those ideas are quite a bit different from a state militia using officers trained by the state of South Carolina to organize a resistance.