2nd amendment as a "collective right". What would that mean?

[baekacaek]

If Heller decision was the other way around, and the court ruled that the 2nd amendment was a collective right and not an individual right, what would that practically mean? If I'm understanding it correctly, it would mean only the militia has the right to bear arms. But considering that militia just means ordinary citizens who take up arms to defend the country in times of need, doesn't that ultimately equate to rights to bear arms for all citizens, and therefore essentially an individual right? Can someone explain the difference between collective vs individual right?

[JDay]

Collective Right = Reserved for the Government.

[Librarian]

Read the Heller analysis itself: http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content...06/07-2901.pdf

And the amicus filings at http://dcguncase.com/ have succumbed to bit-rot, so the longer pieces seem to be unavailable.

ETA see also articles by Joyce Lee Malcom, who specializes in the history.

[PaIadin]

It would mean the same thing if the 4th Amendment was a collective right.

[baekacaek]

Collective Right = Reserved for the Government.

So.... The 2nd amendment would be reduced to "the government has the right to bear arms"? That's pretty laughable. What kind of government in the history of man didn't have the right to bear arms that it needed to remind itself that it could? It feels pretty obvious to me that that's not what the founding fathers meant. (of course not saying that's what you mean)

[Epaphroditus]

Means you only bear arms while under militia duty which means military arms.

[Untamed1972]

So.... The 2nd amendment would be reduced to "the government has the right to bear arms"? That's pretty laughable. What kind of government in the history of man didn't have the right to bear arms that it needed to remind itself that it could? It feels pretty obvious to me that that's not what the founding fathers meant. (of course not saying that's what you mean)

Means you only bear arms while under militia duty which means military arms.

Or it would protect the right of states to have a militia....ie the state national guard units. But since state NG units are also part of the Army now it seem to be rather pointless.

[RickD427]

If Heller decision was the other way around, and the court ruled that the 2nd amendment was a collective right and not an individual right, what would that practically mean? If I'm understanding it correctly, it would mean only the militia has the right to bear arms. But considering that militia just means ordinary citizens who take up arms to defend the country in times of need, doesn't that ultimately equate to rights to bear arms for all citizens, and therefore essentially an individual right? Can someone explain the difference between collective vs individual right?

WHOA,,,Hold on there cowboy.

While I share you understanding of the "militia", and there is considerable support for your view in statute (10 USC 311), that's not the only way to view the term. You also have to deal with the words 'Well Regulated" as they exist in the Second Amendment.

While I believe the term "Well Regulated" to mean a militia that is well trained and equipped to perform its function, as the term was commonly used when written into the Second Amendment, the term could easily be construed in today's context as being a militia that operates under strict procedural guidance.

Combine these thoughts with the belief that the Second Amendment is a collective right and you're left with the National Guard (or otherwise the "Organized" militia as defined in 10 USC 311 since there is no mechanism to ensure that the "Unorganized Militia" would remain "Well Regulated").

Too many military forces have been defeated because they didn't fully understand their opponents. Let's not make the same mistakes in the political arena.

[Bainter1212]

The National Guard can in no way be called a militia (at least not anymore).
All the National Guard is anymore is a part of the standing/reserve military force. The only thing "state" about the National Guard is the funding source.
A governor can "call up" the state National Guard to help in emergencies, however most Guard units are "Federalized" quite frequently and deployed to far flung countries to fight wars for the Federal Government.

I am sorry.....any force that can be "Federalized" like that is not a state militia.

[L84CABO]

It would mean you would only have the right to bear arms if you were in direct service of the/a militia. So no personal concealed carry, etc. And remember that it's illegal in CA to join/form a militia.

I would also argue that the National Guard is most certainly NOT the militia. A key element of the militia is that it is staffed and controlled by the people. And sure, the militia would lend itself to the "State" and take orders from the State quite often but it was still fundamentally controlled by the people. The National Guard is controlled by the State. When the government decides to disarm it's citizens it's highly likely that the jack booted thugs doing the disarming will be the National Guard. Again, no way is the National Guard the modern equivalent of the militia.

[baekacaek]

WHOA,,,Hold on there cowboy.

While I share you understanding of the "militia", and there is considerable support for your view in statute (10 USC 311), that's not the only way to view the term. You also have to deal with the words 'Well Regulated" as they exist in the Second Amendment.

While I believe the term "Well Regulated" to mean a militia that is well trained and equipped to perform its function, as the term was commonly used when written into the Second Amendment, the term could easily be construed in today's context as being a militia that operates under strict procedural guidance.

Combine these thoughts with the belief that the Second Amendment is a collective right and you're left with the National Guard (or otherwise the "Organized" militia as defined in 10 USC 311 since there is no mechanism to ensure that the "Unorganized Militia" would remain "Well Regulated").

Too many military forces have been defeated because they didn't fully understand their opponents. Let's not make the same mistakes in the political arena.

Thanks that was very informative

[croc4]

Doesn't work that way RickD427, you interpret any document with the terms / definitions used at the time of its writing. You do not use modern terms to translate an old text. That is just plain up ignorant.

croc4

[baekacaek]

Doesn't work that way RickD427, you interpret any document with the terms / definitions used at the time of its writing. You do not use modern terms to translate an old text. That is just plain up ignorant.

croc4

I think most of us here agree with you, including RickD427. The problem is the anti's read and interpret it differently. And he was just pointing out how an anti would interpret the 2A, which is what I asked in this thread.

[Springfield45]

Doesn't work that way RickD427, you interpret any document with the terms / definitions used at the time of its writing. You do not use modern terms to translate an old text. That is just plain up ignorant.

croc4

I agree. At the time of writing that meant a "well regulated militia" was able bodied men to be organized (a unit) and drill once a month in marching, firing and reloading. Basic soldier skills at the time. They were required to bring a single shot rifle/musket of suitable caliber, powder horn, and 30 rounds of shot.

[croc4]

I would hope RickD427 agreed also, but the fact that an anti (or anyone) would try to apply modern terms to an old document only goes to show how ignorant they are and have no logical thought process. I know I'm preaching to the choir, but it still needs to be re-enforced, even some so called "pro gunners" are not 100% on board with the 2nd as written and its real meaning.


croc4