2nd Amendment in context: "Any yahoo with a firearm is not a constitutionally authorized militia."

[kpete]

Published by Tom Sullivan on June 5, 2022
Taking the NRA and Justice Scalia to school

Wow. In 4 minutes, former U.S. Marine Marksmanship Instructor and Arizona Sec. of State candidate
@Adrian_Fontes
dismantles the right's Second Amendment lies. Watch this till the end.

Any yahoo with a firearm is not a constitutionally authorized militia.

We all know its language by heart:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

But that amendment’s language, Fontes wants you to remind you, came after the U.S. Constitution had already defined the Militia’s place in the new country. Enjoy:

Link to tweet

?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1532030149897486336%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigbysblog.net%2F2022%2F06%2F05%2Fthe-2nd-amendment-in-context%2F

...........
MORE:
https://digbysblog.net/2022/06/05/the-2nd-amendment-in-context/

[EX500rider]

1. He might want to read Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311.

The Dick Act. The 1903 act repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

[sop]

2. Excellent.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. Best ever! Did he dissect 2A or what?

[Faux pas]

4. Kickin'

[J_William_Ryan]

5. "Any yahoo with a firearm is not a constitutionally authorized militia."

True.

And before the Dick Act, in Presser v. Illinois, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fact that a ‘militia’ can exist only with the authorization of the Federal government or a state government.

Armed citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ and advance the wrongheaded argument that they’re entitled to the same weapons as the Federal military and that they’re ‘exempt’ from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures.

[ThoughtCriminal]

6. No chain of command, no authority, no discipline, no accountability...

armed mobs and individuals are not a WELL REGULATED militia.

[calimary]

8. I keep wondering what they don't understand about the "well-regulated militia" part.

Especially the explicit “well-regulated” description. Always seems to me that the people who worship the 2nd amendment always ignore that specification.

[MyMission]

10. Me too!

Well regulated is easy for many of us to understand, but the gun zealots and GOPQ don't understand.

Of course they always want to deregulate things to benefit themselves, and regulate certain things because they're self-righteous and self serving.

[calimary]

24. That must be it. That and colossal denial. And/or world-class ignorance.

Can’t explain it any other way.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

26. Actually, scholars of the period argue that the phrase "well regulated"

had a different meaning at the time the Constitution was written, one that is akin to "well-trained" in modern parlance.

[MyMission]

28. "well trained" would still need "regulations"

Who decides who's well trained? Or what's involved in training?

[maxsolomon]

32. I've heard many times on DU that it means "well-equipped" with functioning weapons.

as well as trained.

It means what it says: any yahoo is in the unorganized militia; therefore they need functioning armaments to bear in defense of a free state.

now go catch some slaves, militia!

[ripcord]

7. A totally meaning less video

Owning a firearm is now a individual right, making believe it isn't so is pointless.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[paleotn]

17. And black people....

weren't and could never be citizens PER SCOTUS. Point?

Chief Justice, Roger Taney.....We think ... that [black people] are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. On the contrary, they were at that time [of America's founding] considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.

— Dred Scott, 60 U.S. at 404–05

Dred Scott lost at SCOTUS 7 to 2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

[kcr]

31. No more or less pointless than any other discussion regarding change

Unless you think everything's all been decided now. No need for change. Everyone can pack up and go home. Must be nice living in that world.

[ripcord]

34. Until the 2nd Amendment or Heller can be changed it is

That is the only way an individual's right to own a firearm can be stopped. And btw it is called the real world.

[kairos12]

9. Met him at a street fair.

Good dude.

[In It to Win It]

11. I think the most important part of the 2nd amendment isn't the "well-regulated militia" part but

rather the "being necessary to the security of a free State" part. It states its purpose in the amendment. I don't argue with people about whether it's an individual right to own a firearm. However, in a perfect world, I think any activity that is not in furtherance of that goal can be regulated.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Totally Agree

In addition, the phrase "security of a free state" suggests the amendment involves these militias work FOR the government.
It says nothing about tyranny unless the word "free" is twisted to mean more than "state". They look like a tandem to me.
Taking up arms against one's own government doesn't meet my understanding of "security", either.

[Kaleva]

12. With that info from that video, Congress ought to have no trouble banning assault weapons

Probably have it on Biden's desk to sign within a week or two.

[hack89]

13. Yet gun ownership was never legally tied to militia service

Where are all the laws mandating it? Private gun ownership without mandatory militia service has been the norm in America for our entire history.

[hack89]

14. A lot of state constitutions don't mention militias in their 2A language

So there's that. My state, for example, does not tie gun ownership to militia service.

[TeamProg]

16. But states can't LOOSEN Fed law, they can only add restrictions (like a curfew, mask mandate, etc)

as long as those state laws do not infringe on the rights guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights and Constitution.

Right?

[hack89]

21. Gay marriage and cannabis laws loosened federal law, didn't they?

They actually straight out defied federal law.

There is a reason no federal AWB actually banned actual ownership of existing guns.

[TeamProg]

25. Re: pot, it's still technically illegal nationwide. That's why pot shops only deal in cash, banks

can’t give them accounts.

Re: gay marriage. I don’t think there’s a federal law against it is there ? I’m in California where it’s not an issue.

What is AWB? Average White Band? 😀

Generally speaking-states must adhere to Federal law, but states can be more strict in the name of public good.

[hack89]

27. But states ignore federal law

Which is my point.

AWB = assault weapon ban

States can still allow ownership of assault weapons regardless of federal law.

[TeamProg]

29. Not legally. I'm sorry I thought we were having a conversation

based on actual law.

[hack89]

33. You do understand that states have sovereign powers?

No federal AWB will ban ownership of guns. Not a federal power. So even if a federal AWB bans sales, states can still legalize ownership.

Are you saying that Colorado, California, Washington, Massachusetts, etc did not actually legalize cannabis? Really?

[TeamProg]

35. Not fully legal. There are limits to quantities in possession. Small quants are decriminalized.

Fearing no insult, asking for no crown, receive with indifference both flattery and slander, and do not argue with a fool. -Aleksandr Pushkin, poet, novelist, and playwright (6 Jun 1799-1837)


https://www.investopedia.com/marijuana-legality-by-state-4844504

[hack89]

36. But you agree that states can legalize ownership of assault weapons

If not, what is your logic?

[TeamProg]

38. No and uh, you're being kinda weird.

[hack89]

40. If there is no federal ban on ownership than why not?

You do understand the feds won't ban actual ownership?

[hack89]

22. States can give their citizens expanded or original rights

Regardless of federal law. Now those rights are only recognized within that state but as long as they don't violate the federal constitution there is no conflict.

[TeamProg]

15. K&R Thanks for posting. n/t

[asa4ever]

19. It doesn't matter what constitutes a militia.

The only thing that matters is what the Supreme Court says. According to the Supreme Court, the 2nd Amendment has 2 parts. The first part reads, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". That is the only part that is about the militia. The second part says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You may not agree with that, but only the Supreme Court can say what any part of the Consitution means.

[hunter]

23. Just stop. Don't play that game.

Our Constitution as it was originally written was full of bullshit. Some of it has been rectified but not all of it.

Just look at the three fifths person compromise.

The second amendment is related bullshit.

Slave owners were fearful of rebellions like the one that happened in Haiti a few years later.

[SYFROYH]

30. I think he is conflating the militia and the people.

The militia is called from the people who keep and bear arms.

To ensure a minimally outfitted militia, the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights.

[Novara]

37. We all should forward this tweet to our reps and senators

They need to be reminded that THEY WRITE THE LAWS and they can regulate this shit.

[ripcord]

39. People don't understand how hard it is to overturn or modify a consitutionally mandated right

This is what Heller did it settled the question if the right of individuals to own firearms, yes they do. The only way to change that is a SCOTUS majority willing to overturn it or going the route of 2/3s of congress and 3/4 of the states approving a change. The authorized militia part of the 2nd is now totally meaningless.

[asa4ever]

41. The states and Congress can add a new amendment,

but the Supreme Court can find it unconstitutional.