Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Today, 01:11 PM #121
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 2,326
Occam Occam is offline
Recovering Lurker
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Montgomery County
Posts: 2,326
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed bernay View Post
As I seem to recall, the first part of the second amendment reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...". From what I read "well regulated" at the time the 2nd amendment was written meant in good working order. Does that not mean well trained and well supplied?
What the founders were saying was that (despite many arguments to the contrary at the time) it turned out that a standing professional quality military was going to be necessary to protect the growing new nation. But that unlike the life they’d just led under the British crown, the existence of such a well-regulated force could not be used by anyone in government as an excuse to infringe on the individual right to keep and bear their own arms. The 2A doesn’t establish a militia or set any standards for the personal possession of arms. Exactly the opposite! It says your right is protected even if there IS a local, or state, or national militia.
Occam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:15 PM #122
teratos's Avatar
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 24,991
teratos teratos is offline
My hair is amazing
teratos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Bel Air
Posts: 24,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by ed bernay View Post
I understand the difference between the prefatory and operative clause. I understand that the prefatory clause is not a restricting part of the amendment. But it does explain that the founders viewed the organized and unorganized militia as being trained to resist an oppressive government and for self defense. My comments are meant as suggesting another strategy to undermine the anti's current success in the courts. We are not going to win going from 200+ years of anti 2nd amendment laws to zero laws with one case. Didn't Alan Gura throw full auto weapons under the bus in Heller because that fight is for another day?
Occam stated it well. There is nothing vague about "The Right of The People to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed". Nothing about training is in there. The Framer's hoped that people would be well versed in the functioning of their arms, and proficient in their use. They did not REQUIRE it.

Gura didn't throw full auto under the bus. The Heller decision did not address full auto weapons because that is not what the case was about. Gura couldn't put FA in there even if he had a burning desire to do so. Court decisions are very narrowly tailored.
__________________
MSI Executive Member
NRA Life Member
SAF Life Member
MSRPA BOD
I touched Heller.....
teratos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 01:29 PM #123
ed bernay ed bernay is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 73
ed bernay ed bernay is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 73
Thanks I appreciate both of your perspectives. It doesn't change my mind with regards to the strategy to undermine the antis "training" arguments. We keep losing because the courts are applying rational basis dressed up as intermediate scrutiny and using "training" as the excuse. In my opinion spelling out the training that the average police officer receives and then attacking it with a plaintiff that has exceeded that minimal training actually forces the court to prove it with data and not just state that police are better trained. You may disagree but I don't see why it would be worse than losing now. If the police and citizens are made equal by the courts with regards to training and equipment, then future legislation will bound police and they maybe less likely to support it.

Occam - Do you have a source for your explanation? I would like to read up on it further.

Teratos - I know Heller was not about full auto weapons but from what I recall, maybe it was during oral argument, Gura acknowledged that full auto weapons were not protected. I remember because I was not happy about it.
ed bernay is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2018, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service