Author Topic: The right to keep and bear ... ??? (Read 957 times)

Yeager · « **Reply #15 on:** October 25, 2007, 01:41:05 PM »

DHHR and DMV. Both places had prominent signage stating carrying a firearm was prohibited.
====
Well if a crazy freak ever wanted to barge into a government office and gun down a bunch of defenseless twits, those two places would be a safe place to start

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #16 on:** October 25, 2007, 01:42:54 PM »

Militia= National Guard.

Yeager · « **Reply #17 on:** October 25, 2007, 01:50:08 PM »

nice try shrimp. heres my state constitution:
====

ARTICLE X
MILITIA

SECTION 1 WHO LIABLE TO MILITARY DUTY.
All able-bodied male citizens of this state between the ages of eighteen (18) and forty-five (45) years except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or by the laws of this state, shall be liable to military duty.

SECTION 2 ORGANIZATION - DISCIPLINE - OFFICERS - POWER TO CALL OUT.
The legislature shall provide by law for organizing and disciplining the militia in such manner as it may deem expedient, not incompatible with the Constitution and laws of the United States. Officers of the militia shall be elected or appointed in such manner as the legislature shall from time to time direct and shall be commissioned by the governor. The governor shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the state to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.

SECTION 3 SOLDIERS' HOME.
The legislature shall provide by law for the maintenance of a soldiers' home for honorably discharged Union soldiers, sailors, marines and members of the state militia disabled while in the line of duty and who are bona fide citizens of the state.

SECTION 4 PUBLIC ARMS.
The legislature shall provide by law, for the protection and safe keeping of the public arms.

SECTION 5 PRIVILEGE FROM ARREST.
The militia shall, in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at musters and elections of officers, and in going to and returning from the same.

SECTION 6 EXEMPTION FROM MILITARY DUTY.
No person or persons, having conscientious scruples against bearing arms, shall be compelled to do militia duty in time of peace: Provided, such person or persons shall pay an equivalent for such exemption.

Slash27 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 25, 2007, 02:09:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
Seems to point to the fact that you don't have the individual right to bear arms unless you're in a militia.

(ya'll can move over here from that other thread now...)

"fact" eh?

Elfie · « **Reply #19 on:** October 25, 2007, 02:09:36 PM »

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/militia

Quote

Main Entry:
mi·li·tia Listen to the pronunciation of militia
Pronunciation:
\mə-ˈli-shə\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date:
1625

1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b: a body of citizens organized for military service

2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.

The National Guard would seem to be exempt from the definition of Militia since it can be called up by the Federal government w/o it being an actual emergency.

Hornet33 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 25, 2007, 02:14:22 PM »

You sir would be correct.

lazs2 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 25, 2007, 02:50:09 PM »

wow...so they made a whole amendment just to make sure that no one could take away the right of the army to bear arms? seems a little strange.

does that mean that if you are in the national guard or a militia that no one can disarm you... even the government?

nope... just as the courts recently ruled.. the "people" means... well... the people. just like everywhere else in the constitution.. the "militia" means... every able bodied man. It does not mean he signed up for anything tho.

it simply means that we need the militia, an armed population and that when we need em... they are to come running bearing the arms that they have. that they are constitutionally guarenteed.

you can't really see it any other way... no serious constitutional scholar sees it any other way.

lazs

Coshy · « **Reply #22 on:** October 25, 2007, 03:27:32 PM »

Here I was hoping to get some insight into my question, but instead we are now onto the definition of a militia.

Does anyone have anything to comment about the question at hand, or is this going to turn into a anti-gun/NRA type discussion?

Bars and liquor stores I can understand, they are private business and the owner(s) can set the rules.

Charon · « **Reply #23 on:** October 25, 2007, 03:31:02 PM »

Quote

you can't really see it any other way... no serious constitutional scholar sees it any other way.

Yep. They are starting to acknowledge, even some highly regarded liberal constitutional scholars like Lawrence Tribe, that the historic view of the 2nd Amendment was right, and not the modern, more progressive view we have had for only 30-40 years or so. It is so clear that the Circuit Court findings in Parker/Heller overturning the DC handgun ban was a clear smack down to the collective rights argument. The DC response was a total joke that bypassed the actual issues at had to then argue that a right or not, WE MUST SAVE THE CHILDREN! The SCOTUS will likely hear it (unless they chicken out) and the though is not that the outcome is clearly in doubt (individual vs collective) but just how broad or narrow the finding will be. Though, you never know for sure until the robed ones do their thing.

BTW, Parker/Heller was brought about by the Libertarian CATO Institute and not the NRA, which actually fought the case at some points. The next stop on the trip are similar lawsuits in Chicago, etc.

Further reading:

Quote

No, the real victory is that liberals are starting to accept the fact that the constitution has a meaning separate and distinct from what the most pliant liberal judge wants it to mean. Therefore, writes Wittes, “perhaps it’s time for gun-control supporters to come to grips with the fact that the (Second Amendment) actually means something ... For which reason, I hereby advance a modest proposal: Let’s repeal the damn thing.” Wittes isn’t alone. A number of left-wing commentators have picked up the idea as well.

Personally, I would oppose repeal, and I have problems with many liberal arguments against the Second Amendment. But that liberals are willing to play by the rules is an enormous, monumental victory that transcends the particulars of the gun-control debate.

According to the so-called “living Constitution” championed by liberals from Woodrow Wilson to Al Gore and Bill Clinton, amendments are a waste of time since enlightened jurists can simply “breathe new life” into the meaning of the Constitution. No more, if Wittes and Co. have their way. Now, we’ll have to have an argument.

“It’s true that repealing the Second Amendment is politically impossible right now,” Wittes concedes. “That doesn’t bother me. It should be hard to take away a constitutional right.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWUwMDZhMjI0MGNmZjc4NDEwMjUwZGZkZDM1ZDhkNzQ=

Quote

What right is protected by the Second Amendment? According to Henigan, it's only the right to bear arms in conjunction with actual militia service. Never mind that pistols, with an obvious military use, cannot be privately owned in the nation's capital for any purpose whatsoever. Where, then, would a D.C. resident obtain a weapon for militia service? Not to worry, argues Henigan. After all, "[n]o modern militia depends for its viability on privately owned arms," and the Second Amendment was not written to protect some "fantasy militia of which ordinary gun owners can be members without ever having to report for militia duty." There's so much wrong with this argument that it's hard to know where to start.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8190

Airscrew · « **Reply #24 on:** October 25, 2007, 03:38:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Coshy
Here I was hoping to get some insight into my question, but instead we are now onto the definition of a militia.

Does anyone have anything to comment about the question at hand, or is this going to turn into a anti-gun/NRA type discussion?

Bars and liquor stores I can understand, they are private business and the owner(s) can set the rules.

Actually the Feds, States, and local laws apply. I believe its a Federal law no unlicensed firearms were alcohol is served or sold, including convience stores. Of course we all notice how the signs keep down convience and liquor store robberies...

Hornet33 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 25, 2007, 03:38:36 PM »

acfireguy26 · « **Reply #26 on:** October 25, 2007, 03:58:14 PM »

john9001 · « **Reply #27 on:** October 25, 2007, 04:35:17 PM »

go ahead acfireguy26 feed the fire.

"unlicensed firearms ", florida does not license firarms, so what does that law mean?

straffo · « **Reply #28 on:** October 25, 2007, 04:40:02 PM »

Your back should hurt when you wake up.

acfireguy26 · « **Reply #29 on:** October 25, 2007, 04:58:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
go ahead acfireguy26 feed the fire.