In doing some reading today about the 2nd Amendment I came across an interesting read that said the SCOTUS has NEVER given a definitive answer regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment when it comes to INDIVIDUALS right to bear arms.

 

Interesting read for those that want to familiarize themselves with the debate vs the generally accepted theories.

 

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

Part of it centers around the wording: "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."

 

Why the preface? Why not just say "the right of an individual to bear arms shall not be infringed?"

 

So we've gone this far as a republic and it's never been fully determined by the SCOTUS?

I'm not really looking for BGPers interpretations of the Bill of Rights. Irrelevant.

 

The fascinating part to me is that , according to the author, there has never been a definitive statement made by the SCOTUS. If true, am I the only one shocked by that?

I am the furthest thing from a Constitutional scholar, but that is surprising to me as well if true.

If you don't want anyone's opinion on a forum what was the point in this topic. Its pretty clear to any reasonable person with "common sense" what "shall not be infringed" means. People who don't like guns try to find hidden meanings. Like marvel said in another thread, all my rights given to me in the constitution shall not be infringed upon unless I'm infringing on someone else's rights as well. The problem is to many people in this country are to willing to be scared into giving up freedoms for the delusion of more security. But as a great man once said " Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.' Without freedom security is irrelevant.

Read District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Haven't scanned through them, but after searching via westlaw it appears to be the best two and most recent cases relating to the 2nd Amendment.

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

 

Why did I leave the introductory clause? Because it a narrative only clause. It is even properly separated by a comma. The directive to the government is in the main structure of the sentence.

 

But if we digress to the definition of the 'militia' lets go to a co-author of the amendment.

 

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

 

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

 

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

 

 

John Quincy Adams had a good quote as well.

 

The 2nd Amendment?s ?Militia? | Flopping Aces

 

“No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defence of the state…. Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”

Read District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Haven't scanned through them, but after searching via westlaw it appears to be the best two and most recent cases relating to the 2nd Amendment.

 

 

[video=youtube;OD8Jr-f8Lqs]

A quote from Alito's majority decision in McDonald "I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States. I do so because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.

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

 

Why did I leave the introductory clause? Because it a narrative only clause. It is even properly separated by a comma. The directive to the government is in the main structure of the sentence.

 

But if we digress to the definition of the 'militia' lets go to a co-author of the amendment.

 

The Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

 

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

 

George Mason

Co-author of the Second Amendment

during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

 

 

John Quincy Adams had a good quote as well.

 

The 2nd Amendment?s ?Militia? | Flopping Aces

 

“No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defence of the state…. Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”

 

This should settle it.

 

Can't argue with the author of the amendment.

I think the author's basic premise re. the 2nd is correct.

 

The rub comes defining "infringed".

This should settle it.

 

Can't argue with the author of the amendment.

 

Sure we can. It's where the "original intent" arguments always break down. When he says "the whole people," he certainly doesn't mean it.

I very much appreciate the author's interpretation of the opening phrase.

 

"If you parse the Amendment, it quickly becomes obvious that the first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase (or ablative absolute) that does not modify or limit any word in the main clause."

 

Emphasis added.

 

Hopefully this ends the debate or even need to definitely define 'the militia'.

I very much appreciate the author's interpretation of the opening phrase.

 

"If you parse the Amendment, it quickly becomes obvious that the first half of the sentence is an absolute phrase (or ablative absolute) that does not modify or limit any word in the main clause."

 

Emphasis added.

 

Hopefully this ends the debate or even need to definitely define 'the militia'.

 

What is the difference between an ablative absolute and a narrative only clause?

 

I've heard the Second Amendment referred to elsewhere an "ungrammatical" and I agree. I think its grammatical interpretation has become something of a modern day Rorschach test. As a side note, if you would like to read a very thorough breakdown the origins and meaning of the Second, read the opinion and dissent in Heller. Frankly I think the Second is far more ambiguous than either side is willing to admit.

What is the difference between an ablative absolute and a narrative only clause?

 

I've heard the Second Amendment referred to elsewhere an "ungrammatical" and I agree. I think its grammatical interpretation has become something of a modern day Rorschach test. As a side note, if you would like to read a very thorough breakdown the origins and meaning of the Second, read the opinion and dissent in Heller. Frankly I think the Second is far more ambiguous than either side is willing to admit.

 

It is perfect grammer. The statement about the militia is a preceding clause. As directed by sentence mechanics it is separated by a comma.

 

The author goes through this in great detail.

 

Penn and Teller may do a better job of describing it (this does end with a strong profanity).

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YY5Rj4cQ50

Sure we can. It's where the "original intent" arguments always break down. When he says "the whole people," he certainly doesn't mean it.

 

I can't tell if you're being factitious or not.