floridafun wrote:and seems to prove my oft stated position on a well regulated militia (under the training and control by the government) right to bear arms..
Didn't we already have this discussion on the JG forum...or do you just intentionally ignore the Heller vs DC case?
From Cornell's Law Website:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
“ ‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution… . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment , and by the First and Second Amendment s, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendment s, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
- Jedi Youngling
Number of posts : 77
Age : 34
Location : Indiana
Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum