Thread: The Second Amendment

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, theright of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

does this amendment guarantee the right of individual people to own guns?
This could be one of the most mis-understood amendments.

This could mean that for each state to be free (read: new york, new jersey, Iowa, kentucky), that they have the right to regulate their militia within the state, and have the militia from within that state to be comprised of people from that state.

Court cases to back this viewpoint:
1886 - Presser V Illinois - second amendment only functions as a check on the federal government from interfering with the right of the states to maintain a militia.

1939 - US V Miller - upheld a federal law making it a crime to ship a sawed off shotgun in interstate commerce, not on second amendment grounds, claiming lack of evidence the sawed-off shotgun has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita.

1980 - Lewis V United States - restrictions contained in the gu ncontrol act of 1968 prohibbiting felons from owning firearms were constitutional.

1972 - justice William O. Douglass warned that one aspect of the damage wrought by the popular misinterpretation of the second amendment is the dimmunition of the 4th amendment.

1971 - US V Warin - held that the theory of an individual right to own guns was 'misguided'.

So........................................

Originally Posted by The_Bear

does this amendment guarantee the right of individual people to own guns?
This could be one of the most mis-understood amendments.

This could mean that for each state to be free (read: new york, new jersey, Iowa, kentucky), that they have the right to regulate their militia within the state, and have the militia from within that state to be comprised of people from that state.

Court cases to back this viewpoint:
1886 - Presser V Illinois - second amendment only functions as a check on the federal government from interfering with the right of the states to maintain a militia.

1939 - US V Miller - upheld a federal law making it a crime to ship a sawed off shotgun in interstate commerce, not on second amendment grounds, claiming lack of evidence the sawed-off shotgun has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita.

1980 - Lewis V United States - restrictions contained in the gu ncontrol act of 1968 prohibbiting felons from owning firearms were constitutional.

1972 - justice William O. Douglass warned that one aspect of the damage wrought by the popular misinterpretation of the second amendment is the dimmunition of the 4th amendment.

1971 - US V Warin - held that the theory of an individual right to own guns was 'misguided'.

So........................................

Yes it does give individuals the right to own guns. Similar language in the constitution/bor always refers to individual people. To suddenly think that now it refers to states is silly.

As I see it and interpret it, an individual has a right to own a weapon under the notion that they will form a well regulated militia in the case that the government becomes oppressive.

Originally Posted by Vitiate

As I see it and interpret it, an individual has a right to own a weapon under the notion that they will form a well regulated militia in the case that the government becomes oppressive.

Right.

It really wouldnt make much sense to allow people to oppose the government as long as they did it while acting as a part of government.

the point i'm trying to make is clearer if you understand each section of the amendment:

A well regulated Militia

Firstly, there is disagreement over whether its Militia or militia. One version was ratified by the states, another by Congress. If its Militia, it would seem to imply that it was a militia as an organization, ie, state run Militia akin to the national guard. If its militia, that would imply its the people at large who form the militia.
Secondly, in this context, what does 'regulation' mean? Regulation elsewhere in the constitution refers to the capacity of the various governments to interfere for their liking into the realms of their consituents. Is it inconcievable that it means the same thing here?

being necessary to the security of a free State

What is meant by 'state' here? Back when the amendment was first adopted, the 'nation' was not considered a state - for although there was a system of sovereignity in place, it really hasn't been until the rise of the UN that national governments have been termed 'nation states'. Doesn't it seem far more likely, considering that 'states' were individual states, as more along the lines of a parlance of those days, that it would be referring to the states?

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If construed in a certain way, could this seem to conflict with the initial part?

I'm raising these questions as to try and get a clarifying answer.

being necessary to the security of a free State

A state, or nation free of tyrany.

A well regulated Militia

I will refer you to this article. THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT