9th Circuit: Individuals don't have the right to own firearms.

[Ned]

Does anyone have the test of the ruling? If it says what Zkribbler says it says, the holding really makes no sense at all.

[Zkribbler]

Ned, your mean "text." Naw, I haven't seen it. According to the news article I read, it's 70-pages long. Looks like Judge Reinhardt knows this is going up to the Supremes and wants to make his case before he gets reversed.

[Zkribbler]

Ah ha! Found it.

It's Silveira v. Lockyer. Link

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Ned
the Army and the Militia.

The "Militia", then as now, (and codified in statute) basicly means Anyone eligible to join the military and serve in combat. The current stutory definition , for classification purposes (since it cannot change the constirution) is something like all legal male resident from age 17 to 50. Look in the USC, armed services title, for 'unorganized militia'. National gaurd units are 'organized militia'.

[korn469]

The framers were worried about a federally instituted tyranny. That is why they wanted a well regulated state militia. An armed populous would permit a well regulated state militia. The 9th Circuit was therefore acting logically when it declared the rights under the 2nd Amendment flow to the several states, not to individuals.

Zkribbler

i disagree, the second amendment says well regulated, but it doesn't say who should regulate the militia, it doesn't say state militia, nor does it tell exactly what well regulated means, all it specifically states is that the people have a right to arms

what you are saying is that the right to bear arms, isn't a individual right, it isn't a collective right, that instead it is a state right, i don't think the second amendment implies this at all especially when taken in context with the nineth and tenth amendments

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

this means that even if the second amendment doesn't exist, that there could still be an individual right to own guns

damnit! why doesn't the US have a Nineth Amendment lobbying group? it is my favorite amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

The second amendment states, "shall not be infringed," since only the federal or state government could legally infringe on this right, it seems like it would apply to both of them since neither are specifically exempted. That would make this is one of the powers prohibited to the states, otherwise I think it would have said states instead of people.

[Ramo]

If "people" meant "individuals," then the open phrase is meaningless. Congress could have simply said: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Basically you have to examine the etymology of phrases "well-regulated" and "militia."

Look at the root word of "regulate" - rule. Note that rules are not always man-made. Look at the word "regular," for instance, which can refer to the proper operation of a something. Well-regulated militias in this case mean militias that are working properly - well supplied, trained, and so forth.

As others have pointed out, the word "militia" has previously implied an armed citizenry not necessarily taking orders from the state.

Therefore, the initial phrase in the second makes eminient sense, as a well-trained, armed citizenry was pivotal in defending the US.

[Buck Birdseed]

Every time I've tried to make this point in the past people have ignored it and gone on with the frankly silly "it's about individual liberty" vs. "it's about collective security" arguments, so I don't expect it to fare any better now. But I might as well try. Anyway, aspects of it have been covered above this time, so maybe someone will not just skip over it.

Nicolo Macchiavelli, father of modern civic republicanism, claimed that one of the essential facts about the mechanics of a Republic was that in order for the elites not to go mad with power and corruption there needed to be the constant threat of the people rising up and returning power to the constitutional arrangement. In fact, he went so far as to claim that regular popular uprisings were a healthy and natural part of the life of a republic, and one of the reasons it was the only consistently stable form of government. Machiavelli's balance of power rests not between different elites (as the modern american one does) but between the elites on one hand and the citizens themselves on the other.

Now, among the liberal and collectivist thought patterns present among the founding fathers of the united states were also a fair amount of civic republican sentiments. If you look at the US constitution, you will find all three types of thought enshrined in various aspects of it, some more clear-cut than others. The first ammendment, for instance, is quite clearly purely an individual-liberty ammendment.

Equally clearly, the second one (at least to me) seems to be the epitopme of civic republican influence on the formation of the budding american state. It allows people to keep and bear arms for the specific purpose of bringing down a government gone bad, not for randomly and wantonly shooting prowlers in their back yard. It is not about individual freedom or state security, it's about the right of the people to take to arms in a well-ordered manner and take down whatever power-hungry despot is looming at the top. And good riddance.

The best solution therefore would be making shooting people (even in self-defence) illegal, and stop people from weilding guns outside the context of said type of mass movement.

[Lefty Scaevola]

sigh. "regulated" in the phrase does not mean regualted by authority. It means disciplines and somewhat trained. Able to line up in formation, take orders from its officers, and shoot towards the enemy.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
The best solution therefore would be making shooting people (even in self-defence) illegal, and stop people from weilding guns outside the context of said type of mass movement.

So defending yourself against a lethal threat should be "illegal" but then ol Timmy McVeigh would have been fine and dandy, I suppose, because he was attacking power mad despots in his quaint little world view.

[Ramo]

sigh. "regulated" in the phrase does not mean regualted by authority. It means disciplines and somewhat trained. Able to line up in formation, take orders from its officers, and shoot towards the enemy.

Isn't that just what I said?

Every time I've tried to make this point in the past people have ignored it and gone on with the frankly silly "it's about individual liberty" vs. "it's about collective security" arguments, so I don't expect it to fare any better now. But I might as well try. Anyway, aspects of it have been covered above this time, so maybe someone will not just skip over it.

Gun-weilding in mass-protests is an extremely bad idea (only giving cops a rationale to crush protesters' freedoms or accidentally starting a bloodbath).

I'd also say that gun-restrictions aren't particularly effective in stopping violence (if you realize much of it can be attributed to the war on drugs), so such gun-restrictions, particularly given that you woundn't be cutting down on the supply, are pretty much pointless.

[Felch]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
So defending yourself against a lethal threat should be "illegal" but then ol Timmy McVeigh would have been fine and dandy, I suppose, because he was attacking power mad despots in his quaint little world view.

I think Snap was being ironic in some quaint European way.

I also think that you are well aware of that, and that I'm making an ass of myself by telling you.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by korn469
The second amendment states, "shall not be infringed," since only the federal or state government could legally infringe on this right, it seems like it would apply to both of them since neither are specifically exempted.

The Bill of Rights was passed to limit the power of the federal government. It wasn't until the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were passed that these limitations began being extended to the states.

Originally posted by Ramo
Basically you have to examine the etymology of phrases "well-regulated" and "militia."

Look at the root word of "regulate" - rule. Note that rules are not always man-made. Look at the word "regular," for instance, which can refer to the proper operation of a something. Well-regulated militias in this case mean militias that are working properly - well supplied, trained, and so forth.

Ah! So "regulated" does not mean "regulated" but rather "running well on its own without any regulation." Thanks for pointing out my erroneous thinking.

Oh...and uh.."trained" by whom?

[chequita guevara]

Zkribbler, you are aware that words in 18th Century English don't necessarily have the same meanings or emphasis as they do today, don't you?

[monkspider]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Well, there are those who think commie = commie = commie, without realizing that there are substantial differences. Pointing at the Soviet Union when arguing with someone who believes in creating a community in Christ is about as ridiculous as pointing at the evils of Mao to Trotskyist. Like, we know.

Well put Che. That said, we Christian Commies (or at least me, as I'm the only christian commie I have ever met, sadly ) still greatly admire the Marxist literary tradition. So while I think Marx was perhaps wrong on a point or two, I still hold him (and the rest of the gang) in very high regards.

And the community in Christ description is just a tad bit of a misnomer. Mostly because I want to distance myself from past attempts at a "community in christ" such as the Puritans. It is true that the community would just so happened to be based on Christ's teachings and philosophies, but all comrades and workers, whether christian, buddhist, or atheist, would be treated as equals. In fact, part of what I hope to accomplish is to break down the traditional barriers that divide people of all belief systems. We are all God's children, and thus, all will be treated as brothers. So there isn't as much between you and I (relatively speaking) as you may think, comrade.

[David Floyd]

this means that even if the second amendment doesn't exist, that there could still be an individual right to own guns

damnit! why doesn't the US have a Nineth Amendment lobbying group? it is my favorite amendment

I rather like that one too