The Second Amendment---Broken down

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by PharmrJohn, Oct 27, 2009.

  1. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jul 16, 2009
    North Florida
    Uhh, this person you are worried about offending is a "former guest" from two years ago. Not really sure why this old thread was dug up....
  2. Diamondback

    Diamondback Well-Known Member

    Unusual for me I didn't look at the original post date, DUH. as for offending him I just don't GAS. I was more worried about offending the mods.

  3. TotheTop83

    TotheTop83 Member

    Jul 2, 2012
    Southwestern PA
    old thread but WTH, might as well throw this out there.

    Check out US v Miller, Printz v US, and Lewis v US.

    In a nutshell: The 2nd Amendment technically doesn't protect any weapon that is not in "common usage in modern warfare." Miller was found guilty of violating the national firearms act (the merits of which can be debated in another discussion) with a short-barreled shotgun not because it was considered too dangerous, but because it was NOT a weapon of modern warfare. In reality, it was, the court just didn't realize that. The point is, the court decided that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of citizens to possess the very "assault" weapons that so many people are opposed to.

    Secondly (and I can't remember the case, sorry. I'm too lazy to look it up.) in order to decide on what "well regulated militia" meant, the court actually went back to dictionaries from the time the amendment was written to decide what the writers meant. The court found that (as someone above me mentioned) any male of fighting age was deemed to be part of the militia. There was no requirement for formal drilling of any kind; just to be a male and be 18-45 or so.

    Just thought I'd throw that out there in case some people weren't already aware. Our Supreme Court actually seems to be holding the line on the 2nd Amendment, for now. When Obozo appoints his two new justices I'm sure that'll change.
  4. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    US v Miller is an interesting display of misinterpretation. What the Court said was that they could not rule on whether the weapon was in common use in the military because NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN PRESENTED by the defendant, Miller, who was dead at the time. The Court cannot rule on what was not presented and cannot rule on points that are not before the Court.

    If you go to court to defend yourself on a traffic violation, don't complain that the Court didn't find Nixon innocent during your trial.

  5. TotheTop83

    TotheTop83 Member

    Jul 2, 2012
    Southwestern PA
    The court wrote: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

    Which implies that had evidence been presented, the second amendment would guarantee the right to keep and bear such an instrument. In other words, show us it has a relationship to a militia and it is protected.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Second amendment: a good deal, but a deal nonetheless. Aug 13, 2016
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Miss South Carolina Digs Second Amendment Sep 17, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Court Says Waiting Period in CA Violates The Second Amendment Aug 25, 2014
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Court Ruling: Waiting Periods a "Burden" on Second Amendment Rights Dec 20, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Texas House Gives Final Approval to Impressive Number of Pro-Second Amendment Bills May 8, 2013