Explain to me how the comma matters. Or how an amendment ratified 130yrs before the national guard existed has anything to do with the national guard. Nevermind that the national guard, of course, is not a state militia.

The only thing the comma does is separate the parts of the amendment the two sides are focusing on.

Nevermind that the national guard, of course, is not a state militia.
The NG is the only thing we’ve got that’s even close to a Revolutionary-era official militia. I think D.C. will lose and the Supremes will consider it an individual right.

But it’s not a state militia. Period. In fact, the supreme court has ruled that it is subject to the rule of the president.

‘The NG is the only thing we’ve got that’s even close to a Revolutionary-era official militia.’

Nah:

“The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”

Link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

This is an odd case. DC is a Federal territory not a “free state”, as you said. I wonder if the SCOTUS will consider that by limiting the scope of their decision to Federal territories.

Tennessee has the equivalent of a state militia…the Tennessee State Guard.

What is or isn’t a militia seems to be more food for lawyers. The Cornell definition mentioned the NG. And I agree it’s national, not state. I wasn’t aware there was a State Guard. The TNG site mentions them and that’s about all. Interesting.

My guess is that the Supremes will rule as tightly as they can on this so it only applies to D.C. and avoids states completely.

‘DC is a Federal territory not a “free state”,’

IIRC, the dissenting judge in the appellate court argued that exact point.

Well, the NG is the ‘organized militia’ and everyone else is the ‘unorganized militia’ from the text of the law.

Well, I’m definitely part of the unorganized (and too damn old) militia.

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.

Obviously, not being a constitutional scholar I can’t say what is, legally, a “well organized militia”.

However, it seems to me that be definition the National Guard and Naval Guard are well organized; the bulk of the folks who own guns are not subject to any particular government regulation or a draft in time of war, sfaia.

I have nothing against people owning guns, I may own one myself, someday. I have a definite problem with people who think that letting anyone, who can afford to buy a gun (or guns), arm themselves is good public policy.

One might also argue that some of our militia haven’t exactly been “well regulated”…and just who gets to decide what “well regulated” means?

‘Obviously, not being a constitutional scholar I can’t say what is, legally, a “well organized militia”.’

I assume you mean well regulated. Reading at the time indicated that the phrase meant properly trained and equipped. In fact, today, justice Alito said that.

“One might also argue that some of our militia haven’t exactly been “well regulated”…and just who gets to decide what “well regulated” means?”

Congress, given their constitutional power train and call forth the militia.

The phrase ‘well regulated’ in the second amendment modifies the word ‘militia’ and not ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms.’

I was gonna say something, but it looks like SU has it under control.

Oh, except I do need to respond to this:

I have nothing against people owning guns, I may own one myself, someday. I have a definite problem with people who think that letting anyone, who can afford to buy a gun (or guns), arm themselves is good public policy.

It may not be “good public policy”, but it is the right of free people. Many of our rights as outlined in the constitution are not what most scholars would consider “good public policy”:

1. The right of all to vote

Good public policy (GPP) would be to administer some type of test–fiscal or educational–in order to prove the worthiness of the voter.

2. The right to free speech

It isn’t exactly GPP to allow unfettered criticism of those public policies open existence.

3. Provisions against the quartering of soldiers in private homes

GPP would allow the government to save money by requiring the citizenry to house and feed the army. It would also amount to a greater armed presence in the community, foster a sense of security and quell dangerous speech.

I could go on and on, but I’m not gonna.

The point here is that rights of individuals often run counter to the idea of what’s best for the state.

But this country–unlike most others–is founded on the principle of the primacy of the individual, with the State being secondary.

“I have a definite problem with people who think that letting anyone, who can afford to buy a gun (or guns), arm themselves is good public policy.”

Surely you are aware that there are many more qualifications than financial in order to be able to legally carry a firearm.

Your problem actually only lies with those who carry illegally.

Say Uncle:

It appears that “well regulated” means (to those who want the SCOTUS to rule that D.C.’s law is unconstitutional) that all men have a right to bear arms. All men, not women, according to the US Code that was cited. That’s liable to piss a few women off.

How is the militia trained by
Congress? What programs are in place to effect such training? When has Congress called up the militias?

Katherine Coble:

I think you’re confusing public policy with bureaucratic or governmental expediency. It would be horrible public policy to quarter soldiers in private homes or take away a citizens constitutional right to free speech, without due process. Voting rights in the U.S. have been the subject of many bitter court cases and hard fought battles to enact the legislation for “universal suffrage” over the last 300 years.

The examples you use might be expedient for the bureaucrats and pols, they would not be good public policy.

News 2 me:

I am not, actually aware that all states have stringent qualifications for legally carrying a firearm. I can walk into a store in my state and buy a rifle or shotgun with my drivers license and some form of payment.

Getting a handgun permit is quite a bit more time consuming and costs several hundred dollars for applying and taking a training course. Getting a permit to carry a handgun requires that the applicant demonstrate a genuine need for that privilege.

I don’t know about a lot of other states, but I’m told that in a number of states it’s not that hard to get handgun permits. To clarify, I was not even speaking of handguns when I made the comment you quoted.

As for only being concerned about people who are carrying illegally? Quite a few of the recent campus shootings have been carried out by shooters who were legally armed (although they may have been violating the law by carrying guns onto a school campus).

I’m not anti-gun. I am, however, also not persuaded that any of the arguments made for handgun ownership are compelling from the standpoint of having a “well regulated militia”. It’s only my opinion, of course

If I lived in a place with a crime rate like DC, I’d have to have a gun just to sleep well at night. 32 years of strict handgun control haven’t exactly made the place safe at night.

“It appears that … That’s liable to piss a few women off.”

I think it’s pretty safe to assume that since the law was written that maybe we don’t exclude based on gender any more.

“How is the militia trained by
Congress? ”

Beats me.

“What programs are in place to effect such training?”

To my knowledge, the Office of Civilian Marksmanship is the only one. Clinton stopped funding it and now it makes $$ through sales and donations.

“When has Congress called up the militias?”

I hear some of them are in Iraq.

Say Uncle:
“I think it’s pretty safe to assume that since the law was written that maybe we don’t exclude based on gender any more.”

So, the U.S. Code is wrong? But there’s no chance that the circuit court’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment might be?

I asked when the congress had called up the militias.

“I hear some of them are in Iraq.”

Didn’t you tell Jim Voorhies that the National Guard is not a state militia?

“Nevermind that the national guard, of course, is not a state militia.”

Yes, it appears you did.

And you’re saying that apparently there are no serious plans for properly training that “well regulated militia” to which you, I assume, belong.

Apparently such items are not a concern.

Ron:

It’s always difficult to know what might have happened if everybody who felt threatened in D.C. was allowed to keep a handgun in their home. Perhaps fewer gun deaths, perhaps more.

Despite having seatbelts, airbags and all sorts of tekkie goodies in their automobiles people still manage to kill quite a few of themselves and others every year. I don’t think cars should be outlawed. I do think that drivers who demonstrate a penchant for dangerous driving, as repeat offenders, should be prevented from driving.

I’m not suggesting that guns be outlawed. I suggest that handguns be strictly controlled. If a person is not guilty of crime what do they have to fear from regulation?

I don’t think we have much need for a state militia, although the Guard has served us well, but I think the key part of this decison will be the move away from giving a damn about whether there’s a militia at all and towards this being a right accorded to each of us as individuals.

If Democommie doesn’t want to own a gun, that’s cool. If he’s ever in my ‘hood and needs protecting, I’ll throw lead for him.

democommie, Apparently you live in one of the states I deliberately moved out of. I like living in a ‘right to carry’ state. It always bugged me that you had to prove to whatever local beaurocrat that you ‘justified the need for that privilege’. How easily a right became a privilege, huh?
I remember in NY how that privilege was extended to those with political connections, instead of genuine need.
Some animals are more equal than others.

I believe that SU is trying to point out that the NG is NOT a state militia BECAUSE they are under the control of the congress, evidenced by the fact that they are in Iraq.

“So, the U.S. Code is wrong? But there’s no chance that the circuit court’s interpretation of the 2nd amendment might be?”

Code can’t be wrong, it is what it is. Go challenge the law if you feel aggrieved.

‘Didn’t you tell Jim Voorhies that the National Guard is not a state militia?’

There is also a federal militia. Is US code written in some foreign language?

‘And you’re saying that apparently there are no serious plans for properly training that “well regulated militia” to which you, I assume, belong.’

That’s the only thing you’ve managed to get correct so far.

Jim Voorhies:

Thanks, but I tend to stay out of neighborhoods where I think gunfire is part of the decor.

I just don’t get the persecution complex that so many “gun rights” folks seem to have. I’m not in favor of taking guns away from people.

Obviously, since I don’t own a gun I don’t have the visceral need to own one. I did look into getting one a while back, but the process was involved and it cost a few hundred dollars. Personally, I think good alarm systems and common sense will deter more home invasion/burglary than homeowners keeping a Glock in their underwear drawer.

Of course if someone breaks into my house I will be faced with using my cellphone to call the police, raising a window and escaping the building or something else.

I am just guessing, but my guess is that as soon as the SCOTUS rules on this issue, the same people will press a suit to be allowed to carry their weapons around when they are in D.C. The Secret Service and FBI will be thrilled with that scenario.

Say Uncle:

I didn’t say the US Code was wrong. I don’t feel aggreieved. It appears that you understand that the law might evolve over time, but that you also understand that the conditions you feel are central to your 2nd Amendment rights can not. It’s cherry picking.

Say Uncle:

I meant to add that the US Code link that you supplied does not indicate that the NG is a federal militia.

Personally, I think good alarm systems and common sense will deter more home invasion/burglary than homeowners keeping a Glock in their underwear drawer.

And what happens if the homeowners are in their home, the burglar snips the alarm or power cables, and breaks in? I think I’d still like to have some protection such as a Glock, Walther PPK, or S&W handy…Just remember, a lot of criminals don’t have common sense.

“I meant to add that the US Code link that you supplied does not indicate that the NG is a federal militia.”

Then what sort of militia is it? Bonus points if you can slide a tenth amendment reference in there.

‘It appears that you understand that the law might evolve over time, but that you also understand that the conditions you feel are central to your 2nd Amendment rights can not.’

No kidding? That’s a relief because here I was about to drop my longstanding position that private citizens cannot own nuclear weapons. Thanks for clearing that up.

“If a person is not guilty of crime what do they have to fear from regulation?”

Well, under the law as structured, having a loaded handgun in your home is the crime, unless it was registered before 1976.

Say Uncle:

This is part of a much longer piece:

“The State Area Command (STARC) is a mobilization entity in each state and territory. It organizes, trains, plans, and coordinates the mobilization of NG units and elements for state and federal missions. The STARC is responsible for emergency planning and response using all NG resources within its jurisdiction. It directs the deployment and employment of ARNG units and elements for domestic support operations, including military support to civil authorities. As with active duty forces, emergency response may be automatic or deliberate. When the NG is in a nonfederal status, the governor serves as commander-in-chief of the NG in his state or territory and exercises command through the state adjutant general (TAG). While serving in state status, the NG provides military support to civil authorities, including law enforcement, in accordance with state law. Federal equipment assigned to the NG may be used for emergency support on an incremental cost-reimbursement basis.”

It appears to me that the NG is not purely federal or purely state controlled. The POTUS, as commander-in-chief, may choose to deploy the NG in repsonse to emergencies of whatever nature he deems appropriate. I don’t think Congress has that power.

Your bit about nuclear weapons is just silly, but, then, I didn’t actually expect a reasonable response.

Ron:

We’re talking about two different things. If those folks in D.C. want to break a law to test it, that’s their business. I was talking about firearms in general, but particularly handguns. I was not talking about outlawing their posession.

Eric:

Yes all of those things can and probably do happen on occassion but they will in any event. As you say, criminals don’t always exhibit common sense, why would me having a gun keep them from trying to get into my house? Having an alarm system and a UPS in case of a power outage is not terribly expensive nor difficult to install.

‘It appears to me that the NG is not purely federal or purely state controlled.’

The president, as ruled by the SCOTUS, has ultimate say on the NG. Hence, any sort of conflict defaults to the feds. They are, therefore, not ultimately state militias. If they were, why do various states have their own militias?

‘Your bit about nuclear weapons is just silly, but, then, I didn’t actually expect a reasonable response.’

You mean affirming what you asked is silly?

Say Uncle:

You said congress, I didn’t. So, were you wrong before, or are you wrong now.

Your comment about nuclear weapons in no way “affirms” what I asked. It evades making a reasonable answer to a complex question. Again, I’m not surprised.

‘You said congress, I didn’t. So, were you wrong before, or are you wrong now.’

Are you retarded? Or do you know nothing about the structure of our government? I mean, when I was in like fifth grade I learned congress’ role in military matters (i.e., it can declare war; funding; calling forth; etc.) and I also learned that the president was commander in chief. Read a book.

‘Your comment about nuclear weapons in no way “affirms” what I asked.’

You asserted that the way law was treated may evolve over time. As such, taking the issue discussed (second amendment and arms) to its logical extreme is perfectly valid. And it was silly on purpose. I’m sorry if you’re incapable of figuring out the thing in the middle that lead me to that statement.

Now, when you are actually contributing something to this conversation other than picking nits that show your ignorance, let me know.

Regards.

Say Uncle:

Congress is the l-e-g-i-s-l-a-t-i-v-e branch. The president is the e-x-e-c-u-t-i-v-e branch. The legislative branch does declare war, fund the military, etc. The executive branch, in the person of the president is the commander-in-chief. It’s that separation of powers thing, bub. Read a book.

The nuclear weapon comment by you was silly. Actually what I was asserting is that while you think the US Code will just morph into bringing women into the militia, because, y’know, things change–while holding your view of the 2nd Amendment to be absolutely correct and immutable (what happens if the SCOTUS says you’re take is wrong?) appears to be a contradiction.

I’m actually picking nits to show your ignorance. But, we are definitely not going to change one another’s minds. You want to be able to kill anyone that needs killing and I don’t really have those fantasies.