Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 09-22-2022, 5:02 PM
DolphinFan DolphinFan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,834
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Forget the first part focus on the last part.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-22-2022, 5:52 PM
artoaster's Avatar
artoaster artoaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ventura Co.
Posts: 1,204
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandHill View Post
[INDENT][B]

But what about the "well regualted" part? What rights to "regulate" does the government retain?
If you read it correctly there are no rights granted. The right to keep and bear arms by the people and the militia are simply acknowledged.

The Second Amendment is a limit on government plain and simple. It states most profoundly "Shall not be infringed". That says all the people need to hear to ensure that the right remains and secures that the state and the union remains free.
__________________


You generally run out of time before you run out of ammo.

NRA Member [/FONT***] 
[

Former NRA Member
CGF Member
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-23-2022, 3:24 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,637
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artoaster View Post
If you read it correctly there are no rights granted. The right to keep and bear arms by the people and the militia are simply acknowledged.

The Second Amendment is a limit on government plain and simple. It states most profoundly "Shall not be infringed". That says all the people need to hear to ensure that the right remains and secures that the state and the union remains free.
Courts (and anti gun folks) routinely ignore that phrase. Citing it is useless. It is trivial to dispute the laughably stupid "well regulated" means "modern legislation" claim. Why not just dispute it directly?
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-23-2022, 3:44 PM
Epaphroditus's Avatar
Epaphroditus Epaphroditus is offline
Custom Title is Custom
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Where the McRib runs wild and free!
Posts: 4,432
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Let's not forget the militia acts are plainly unconstitutional. All aspects of militia are rights retained by the people save provisions made in article 1 sec 8.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-23-2022, 4:31 PM
Dvrjon's Avatar
Dvrjon Dvrjon is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 9,816
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The difficulty in interpretation for me is the juxtaposition of the prefatory clause to the operative clause...an artifact of the speech patterns of the time.

Today we would lead with the operative clause and then emphasize the operation by highlighting one specific reason for keeping and bearing arms.

It might then read something like:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed [so as to, among other things, ensure] a well regulated Militia, [which is] being necessary to the security of a free State.
With this, the relevance of the "well-regulated Militia" reference gains context and becomes irrelevant (unless, of course, the Founders distrusted government and continued to believe that, "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and think "We the People" might have to, in the future, again rise up).

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, Page 23, Last paragraph.
Quote:
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
__________________
"People say nothing is impossible, but I do nothing every day.”
"Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently-talented fool."
"The things that come to those who wait may well be the things left by those who got there first."
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-23-2022, 5:41 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,637
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dvrjon View Post
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed [so as to, among other things, ensure] a well regulated Militia, [which is] being necessary to the security of a free State.
Agreed that this approach (when combined with observing that "well regulated" has no relation whatsoever to "legislation") is far superior to simply repeating "shall not be infringed".
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome

Last edited by curtisfong; 09-23-2022 at 5:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 09-24-2022, 8:19 AM
artoaster's Avatar
artoaster artoaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ventura Co.
Posts: 1,204
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

It says what it says. Only those who refuse to understand that it is meant for the people to keep and bear arms and the government to allow an armed populace as a check against a tyrannical take over of the constitutional republic.
__________________


You generally run out of time before you run out of ammo.

NRA Member [/FONT***] 
[

Former NRA Member
CGF Member
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 09-24-2022, 8:43 AM
SWalt's Avatar
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,260
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VictorFranko View Post
17-45?

The age group that will defend this country is probably more like 30-75
The average person in the 1700's would only live to 45 or 50. 45 is the new 70
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 09-25-2022, 7:28 AM
ruel ruel is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 67
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

This should clear it up

A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to food?

A well balanced breakfast or the People


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 09-25-2022, 10:27 AM
cz74 cz74 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 594
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The late justice John Paul Stevens supposedly told a group of law students many years ago "...the Constitution is what the majority of us on the supreme court say it is..."
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 09-25-2022, 12:15 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,637
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel View Post
This should clear it up

A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to food?

A well balanced breakfast or the People
I hadn't seen this one before thanks. I like it. Note that it also means the People have the right to have a not very balanced breakfast, or none at all as well..
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 09-25-2022, 12:29 PM
johnthomas's Avatar
johnthomas johnthomas is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Henderson Nevada
Posts: 6,975
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

[QUOTE=SandHill;



For example, my issuing authority requires CCW applicants to show a well fitting holster for each firearm they want on their permit.

My issuing authority is Clark County Nevada. Nothing about holsters, 5 year permit and no gun listed on permit. Carry whatever conceal carry gun you want, as many as you want. I know this is a California forum, I lived there until 4 1/2 years ago. Monterey County was not real friendly to CCW wanting folks. I never applied.
__________________
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Last edited by johnthomas; 09-25-2022 at 12:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 09-25-2022, 1:05 PM
M1NM M1NM is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: West Covina
Posts: 7,476
iTrader: 54 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DentonandSasquatchShow View Post
Back then they weren't talking about 1745 yo's either. It was/is anyone who can hold a gun.
During the Revolutionary period 16-60 was the ages you were eligible (required?) to bear arms, of course there were drummers and fifers as young as 8 in the midst of battle.
Just about every town had a militia that drilled monthly on the green. If you didn't show up you got fined. That training had been going on since the mid 1600s due to the "Indian problem". The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Massachusetts was formed in 1638 as a training unit. Still in business today mainly as the ceremonial guard to the governor.

AHAC was chartered and established as a military company in 1638 to train young gentleman officers for service in the various militias of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It was a noble mission and we were successful in shaping leaders who served Commonwealth and country for over 250 years. Our mission has changed. With the creation of the National Guard and the federalization of officer training in the early twentieth century, we entered a new phase in our Company's history. Our Company mission has changed to a supportive role in preserving the historic and patriotic traditions of our city, Commonwealth and Nation.

Take a look at some of the old 40-50s movies like Drums Along the Mohawk and Johnnie Tremain to see what the militia, training, bearing arms was like in period that is pretty accurate.

Last edited by M1NM; 09-25-2022 at 1:15 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 09-25-2022, 4:43 PM
2761377's Avatar
2761377 2761377 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: the V ring
Posts: 1,671
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

^^^

that's pre-1775.

the context of the Constitution is victory against the British. A revolt against an established and legitimate domestic government.

to Secure a Free State.

without the pre-existing militias the war would have never even started.

that is the motive of the Second Amendment.
__________________
MAGA
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 09-25-2022, 8:42 PM
SWalt's Avatar
SWalt SWalt is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Riverside
Posts: 6,260
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruel View Post
This should clear it up

A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to food?

A well balanced breakfast or the People


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Good way of putting it. Simple and shows the essence.
__________________
^^^The above is just an opinion.

NRA Patron Member
CRPA 5 yr Member

"...which from their verbosity, their endless tautologies, their involutions of case within case, and parenthesis within parenthesis, and their multiplied efforts at certainty by saids and aforesaids, by ors and by ands, to make them more plain, do really render them more perplexed and incomprehensible, not only to common readers, but to lawyers themselves. " - Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09-26-2022, 8:15 PM
SandHill's Avatar
SandHill SandHill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

As usual, more heat than light being genrated by our "discusssion" here.

A couple of common threads emerged in many postings here:

1. We are all the militia. Totally agree with this and said so in my first post.

Which leaads me to the second common thread:

2. "Well regualted" at the time of the Bill of Rights means something like "working well."

A few excerpts from previous posts to this effect (I will omit lenghty quotes from SCOTUS becuase I think they are all pointing in the same direction).

Quote:
Originally Posted by moleculo View Post
Do a little googling on what "well regulated" meant in this context at the time of writing. It isn't the same meaning as today. "Well regulated" primarily meant "in good shape to fight", which includes well armed and well equipped.

https://constitutioncenter.org/image...CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epaphroditus View Post
Being trained and ready to go at a moments notice in case the militia is activated for service- that's what well regulated means. Are you ready?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bruss01 View Post
OP, "well-regulated" in the 2A does not mean encumbered with all sorts of rules and policies hashed out by some bureaucracy or legislature.

It means to be made regular, in the sense of uniformly brought up to optimal condition. A clock calibrated to keep precise time is "well-regulated". A car that has had a recent tune up, oil change and all maintenance yp to date is "well-regulated". And a general populace, which is apt to be called upon to defend innocent life, protect property, and defend the community, which not only possesses arms with which to do so, but also lifetime of familiarity in using those arms effectively, would be considered "well-regulated". As in, optimally prepared to perform that with which it is tasked.

This is the 1790's meaning of tge term "well-regulated". If you re-read the whole 2A with this meaning clarified in your mind, it will become obvious tgat tge founders knew that people without their own arms, and furthermore, without years of experience in using arms, make lousy people to tap on the shoulder saying "hey, you there... guess what you're getting sent out to fend off invaders or round up a band of outlaws". It's obvious that would end badly. So everyone was encouraged to be armed, to become familiar with those arms, and to possess whatever acouterments were needed to be effective in serving that role if called upon.
OK, so with this definition of "well regulated" in mind, I maintain that the "regualtions" I originally posited are perfetly consistent with the THT of the Second Amendment. For anyone still reading and not already tapping out a reply to the effect of "burn the communist mole at the stake" let me remind you what the regulations under discussion are.

The regulations I wanted to talk about were the requirements of my IA that guns on your CCW permit be: not less than .380 acp caliber, have a capacity of at least five rounds, be in serviceable condition, that you have a proper holster for each and that you pass a shooting test with each. Those regualtions are clearly intended to ensure that the militia (us!) is effectively equiped with arms that can get the job at hand done and trained to use them. Perfectly consistent with the THT of a "well regulated militia." QED
__________________
Russian Warship: Go F*** Yourself! - Roman Hrybov, Ukrainian Border Guard

Uncle Vlad, you better not let me draw a bead on your sorry azz! - Ghost of Roza Shanina, WWII Soviet Sniper

Roza, please hold off for now. Pooty Poot is helping Make America Great Again! - SandHill
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09-27-2022, 1:28 PM
artoaster's Avatar
artoaster artoaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ventura Co.
Posts: 1,204
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

You want a government that has already infringed on your right with their various and continuous attacks, and that will use the free press to get you to obey or be charged with crimes to issue you a license?

Then to allow all sorts of these prohibitionists already working in government to be in charge of the people's militia and determine how they are supposed to regulate themselves is like allowing the British to be in charge of your arms and your tactics before the founding of our freedoms. It makes no sense.

Constitutional carry and a free market in training and sales of equipment where we in the gun culture can operate to ensure all of our neighbors their sacred bill of rights.
__________________


You generally run out of time before you run out of ammo.

NRA Member [/FONT***] 
[

Former NRA Member
CGF Member
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09-27-2022, 3:45 PM
SandHill's Avatar
SandHill SandHill is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,002
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by artoaster View Post
You want a government that has already infringed on your right with their various and continuous attacks, and that will use the free press to get you to obey or be charged with crimes to issue you a license?

Then to allow all sorts of these prohibitionists already working in government to be in charge of the people's militia and determine how they are supposed to regulate themselves is like allowing the British to be in charge of your arms and your tactics before the founding of our freedoms. It makes no sense.

Constitutional carry and a free market in training and sales of equipment where we in the gun culture can operate to ensure all of our neighbors their sacred bill of rights.
As usual on CalGuns, straw men and non sequiters. I didn't say I "wanted" any of this. I said this kind of "regulation" is consistent with the THT of the Second Amendment and therefore passes constitutional muster.
__________________
Russian Warship: Go F*** Yourself! - Roman Hrybov, Ukrainian Border Guard

Uncle Vlad, you better not let me draw a bead on your sorry azz! - Ghost of Roza Shanina, WWII Soviet Sniper

Roza, please hold off for now. Pooty Poot is helping Make America Great Again! - SandHill
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09-27-2022, 4:34 PM
BAJ475's Avatar
BAJ475 BAJ475 is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kootenai County Idaho (Hayden)
Posts: 3,278
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandHill View Post
As usual on CalGuns, straw men and non sequiters. I didn't say I "wanted" any of this. I said this kind of "regulation" is consistent with the THT of the Second Amendment and therefore passes constitutional muster.
What would be consistent with the Second Amendment is that you do not need a permit or permission to carry whatever firearm you want for self defense. So what your IA is asking for (not less than .380 acp caliber, have a capacity of at least five rounds, be in serviceable condition, that you have a proper holster for each and that you pass a shooting test with each) is not consistent with the Second Amendment's THT because none of that was required to carry for self defense.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09-27-2022, 4:58 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 6,637
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SandHill View Post
I said this kind of "regulation" is consistent with the THT of the Second Amendment and therefore passes constitutional muster.
I can't think of any plausible legal theory which supports this claim, considering there is no militia requirement (let alone one that is "well equipped and trained") whatsoever in any (current) interpretation of the 2A.

If your claim is based on the hypothetical case where there is a militia requirement, in that universe, just about anything is possible, including (but not limited to) your claim.

Just about any foolishness is on the table.

I get where you are going, but IMO there isn't much to discuss.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamala Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-28-2022, 6:03 AM
artoaster's Avatar
artoaster artoaster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Ventura Co.
Posts: 1,204
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

How else does anybody keep freedom except to fight against tyrannical forces with arms?

Isn't that the basic concept? Why complicate it with rules made by men who constitute a governing body against a people who seek to be free of oppressive rule?

States shall issue CCW using basic I.D. and criminal background check. Issuing agency to suggest private firearms industry training and legal insurance optional (yet strongly encouraged).
__________________


You generally run out of time before you run out of ammo.

NRA Member [/FONT***] 
[

Former NRA Member
CGF Member

Last edited by artoaster; 09-29-2022 at 6:29 AM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 -8. The time now is 9:14 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy

Tactical Pants Tactical Boots Military Boots 5.11 Tactical