Originally posted by lazs2
bingie... you don't even know what the amendment says.
"wrong laz,
It says
"a well regulated militia , as being necessary {"a necessity"} to the security of a free state,". It is the only thing that is a necessity in the whole amendment. Because of that necessity. the people "have the right" to keep and bear arms."
It does not say "as being necessary" what it says is that " 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.
Now, they sure seem to know the difference between state and people since they use both words in the same amendment to mean two different things. People.. and ... government...
No one but you and a couple of far left professors would ever think that the militia was conditional.. it would be conditional the other way around if anything... if the right of the people to keep and bear arms were taken away then there would be no militia nor would it be "necessary"... It would simply not exist.
To say that the militia is simply the government and that "the people" is who they allow.. and then to say that the amendment was written so that the government could arm itself against the people... well.. that would not have made sense when the amendment was written and it doesn't make sense now..
But.. if you want the SC to define "people" and peoples rights in the constitution to mean a "collective right" (no right at all) well.. the whole constitution would be just so much toilet paper. With the government giving and taking rights at whim.. no inalienable rights at all save those granted by a government.
I do not believe the court wants to go down this path.. Like a lot of lefties tho.. I am sure the 2nd is unpopular with you but.. most of the left is smarter than you and can see past their nose.. they see that.. much as they hate the second.. to go down your totalitarian path would open the floodgates on any other amendment that used the word "people". Or...for that matter.. "state".
You might not want the fourth defined in your newspeak way for instance.
lazs
307 U.S. at 178. Miller has been interpreted by this court and other courts to hold that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and transport a firearm where there is no evidence that possession of that firearm was related to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller for proposition that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia");(2) see also Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (referring to Miller's implicit rejection of traditional individual rights position); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995) ("Since [Miller], the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right."); United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir. 1984) (interpreting Miller to stand for rule that, absent reasonable relationship to preservation of well-regulated militia, there is no fundamental right to possess firearm); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977) (analyzing Miller and concluding that "[t]o apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy"); but see United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 226 (5th Cir. 2001) (reading Miller as indecisive and, at best, supporting an individual's right to bear arms).
We conclude Parker's reliance on Emerson is unavailing for several reasons. First, we cannot rely on a ruling from another circuit when this court has ruled to the contrary. Parker's reliance on Emerson is foreclosed by this court's rulings in Bayles, Graham, and Haney, where we held that absent a showing that a person is part of a well-regulated state-run militia, the Second Amendment does not establish a citizen's right to possess a firearm.
Second, the Fifth Circuit stands alone in its interpretation of the Second Amendment as conferring an individual right to bear arms. In contrast, the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have adopted the most restrictive interpretation (also known as "the collective rights model") of the Second Amendment. Under "the collective rights model," the Second Amendment never applies to individuals but merely recognizes the state's right to arm its militia. See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); Love, 47 F.3d 120; United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Price, 328 F.3d 958, 961 (7th Cir. 2003) (rejecting reasoning adopted in Emerson). Similarly, in addition to this court, the First, Third, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have all adopted a "sophisticated collective rights model." Under this interpretation of the Second Amendment, an individual has a right to bear arms, but only in direct affiliation with a well-organized state-supported militia. See United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942).
Third, putting aside the fact that Miller requires that a party have some connection to a state-run militia, even the Fifth Circuit's most narrow interpretation of Miller does not support Parker's claim. To the extent Miller only stands for the rule that a sawed-off shotgun is not a military firearm and therefore not covered by the Second Amendment, Parker has presented no evidence that his revolver would come within the category of arms used by the military. To the contrary, at trial, Officer Michael Palhegyi, who was part of the military police unit that took Parker into custody, testified that Parker's firearm was "not considered a military grade weapon" and, instead, more commonly was used for personal defense or target practice. App. at 30. We conclude Parker's prosecution by the United States pursuant to the ACA did not violate the Second Amendment.
Seems the only court that agrees with you is the 5th, seems that you dont know what it says laz. You want Tex, Miss and Lou to make law for ya fine.
