Want to carry a gun in NJ: Get insurance

[Cuddles]

What you write of is pre ratification militias of the revolutionary war period.

Scalia jettisoned the part of the Second that includes the justification for the Amendment in terms of militias.

The Second reads:
“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."

I am going with this: (pg 24 of the Heller decision)
“security of "a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued"

Logic and the above leaves me no choice other than to assume the Militia in the Second amendment is, as interpreted in Heller, not an individual state nor collective militia of individual states wanting to overthrow the government.

There is a place for such militias, but it is in extra-constitutional armed revolt, as for example the pre ratification militias that over through British rule.

If the militia of the second Amendment is a militia of states combining forces to protect the "security of a free State," i.e., defend the nation, then those militia have been replaced by the National Guard. One is the replacement for the other, but they are not the same. That I agree with.

My main point is that the Militia in the second Amendment can not possibly be "a citizen force that could oppose autocratic/tyrannical rule, be it state or fed" because those same citizens you write of are citizens of the state or federal government they oppose. Such a force would be extra-constitutional by definition, and therefore not be provided for in the Constitution. Such a post ratification militia would constitute revolt. These lunatics that attacked the Capital on Jan 6th were extra-constitutional. They constitute a revolutionary or insurrectionist force. They are not a 2nd Amendment militia.

The militias you write of did exist pre-ratification, and the tyranny they were fighting was that of the British Crown.

Which brings me to my main point. The Second Amendment is actually obsolete so long as one does not jettison the preforatory clause. Scalia, not so adroitly, did jettison the preforatory clause. That allowed him to retain the Operative clause in the Amendment and avoid having to deal with the prospect that the Amendment is obsolete, as I claim.

The last time we saw an extra-constitutional, organized, citizen militia in the U.S. was on Jan 6th.

You miss the point that "a militia necessary for the security of a free state" by definition can no longer be part of said state if the state is no longer free and/or threatening the freedom of the people. So no, they are not unconstitutional nor part of the state once the aforementioned breaks the contract with them and goes rogue against the people's freedoms.

Remember this was written on the heels of having overthrown autocratic rule and citizen's militias having played a pivotal role in the revolution. My history's fuzzy but I'm sure the Brits. likely tried to disarm the citizenry and as such the colonists realized the value of not complying and putting it on paper. It also flies in the face of every revolution by people worldwide who took arms to overthrow their oppressors (militias being "no longer of the state").

Yes, the Jan 6th yahoos would have considered themselves a constitutional militia because their delusion was such that a legislative coup was occurring. That or they intentionally wanted to overthrow the gov. in favor of autocratic rule. A militia need not be on the right side of history, especially if mass psychosis drives the mob. However by definition, since no such legislative coup occurred, they are rightfully called seditionists because no matter what kool-aid they were drinking, the reality was that the state was not going rogue or autocratic.

 

[piezoe]

You miss the point that "a militia necessary for the security of a free state" by definition can no longer be part of said state if the state is no longer free and/or threatening the freedom of the people. So no, they are not unconstitutional nor part of the state once the aforementioned breaks the contract with them and goes rogue against the people's freedoms.

I wasn't able to follow your full meaning in the above, but that's Ok. Perhaps my posts were a bit too nuanced to be easily understood. I apologize if that's the case. Pages 22-25 are enlightening with regard to militias if that is of any interest. The discussion I'm referring to begins after "2. The Prefatory Clause." on Pg 22. in the Scalia Opinion.

I'll repeat here these two sentences [edited for better clarity] from my earlier post #25:

After the Constitution was ratified, the only interpretation of the word "militia" in the Second Amendment that makes sense is that "militia" there means a militia protective of the [union of states]. The word "Militia" in the Constitution's Second Amendment can not possibly mean a militia formed to fight against the Federal Government.​

That said, the fools that showed up at the Capital on Jan 6th can be called a militia of sorts having been organized and armed. But if they are a militia, they are certainly an illegal extra-constitutional one. That is not the kind of militia mentioned in our second Amendment.

If I could understand more fully your post, I'm quite sure I'd agree with much of it, at least more than I agreed with Scalia's excision of the prefatory clause from the rest of the Amendment. If you leave the prefatory clause attached, as he should have, than it is quite clear that the Amendment taken in its entirety was speaking to the right to keep and bear arms in conjunction with service in a militia. Absent the prefatory clause, however the Amendment becomes unlimited in scope. It is hard for the me to believe that's what was intended.

 

[Cuddles]

I wasn't able to follow your full meaning in the above, but that's Ok. Perhaps my posts were a bit too nuanced to be easily understood. I apologize if that's the case. Pages 22-25 are enlightening with regard to militias if that is of any interest. The discussion I'm referring to begins after "2. The Prefatory Clause." on Pg 22. in the Scalia Opinion.

I'll repeat here these two sentences [edited for better clarity] from my earlier post #25:

After the Constitution was ratified, the only interpretation of the word "militia" in the Second Amendment that makes sense is that "militia" there means a militia protective of the [union of states]. The word "Militia" in the Constitution's Second Amendment can not possibly mean a militia formed to fight against the Federal Government.​

That said, the fools that showed up at the Capital on Jan 6th can be called a militia of sorts having been organized and armed. But if they are a militia, they are certainly an illegal extra-constitutional one. That is not the kind of militia mentioned in our second Amendment.

If I could understand more fully your post, I'm quite sure I'd agree with much of it, at least more than I agreed with Scalia's excision of the prefatory clause from the rest of the Amendment. If you leave the prefatory clause attached, as he should have, than it is quite clear that the Amendment taken in its entirety was speaking to the right to keep and bear arms in conjunction with service in a militia. Absent the prefatory clause, however the Amendment becomes unlimited in scope. It is hard for the me to believe that's what was intended.

I may be misremembering the DC Heller decision but the bolded sounds like we're basically in agreement. I think I remembered Scalia making the argument wording made it unclear and as such open to their clarification that the "militia" part was separate from the "the right of the people" which I disagree with.

 

[murray t turtle]

This insurance play is nonsense.

The best solution to the fight between 2A and responsible gun ownership? Require safety training for every gun purchased. The type of training required for concealed carry, even for a simple .22 rifle or shotgun.

If you cannot handle it safely, you may not own it. Period.

You must go through rigorous safety training for your firearm before you are allowed to own it.

A perfect example of this nonsense bullshit unbelievable screw-up in the law is Massachusetts. I was a licensed hand-gun firearm instructor here for years, and there was no law requiring live-fire training before being given the concealed-carry certificate.

That is BS! You MUST know how to handle a firearm with live ammo, otherwise your training is pointless in the field with live ammo! GAH!!!! Made my head spin!!!!!!!

%%
I learned that as a kid;
+ i trust the private sector much more than any gov infringement.
THE 10 commandments of gun safety are not that complicated.
Lawful gun owners have so few accidents , thank God .
OUR southern state has a required hunter safety course , with 10 commandments; its age related .
Bottom line\ look @ hi crime/ hi taxes /hi gun regs , in NY, CA, Chicago ................
Good points on live fire {+wear ear muffs-LOL]

 

[El OchoCinco]

%%
I learned that as a kid;
+ i trust the private sector much more than any gov infringement.
THE 10 commandments of gun safety are not that complicated.
Lawful gun owners have so few accidents , thank God .
OUR southern state has a required hunter safety course , with 10 commandments; its age related .
Bottom line\ look @ hi crime/ hi taxes /hi gun regs , in NY, CA, Chicago ................
Good points on live fire {+wear ear muffs-LOL]

Chicago and NY might have gun violence but so do the suburbs nad country with mass gun shootings. Just because more people die in Chicago does not make it a Chicago issue.

All of these guns are legally made but then get sent out into the world with no care or worry about who buys them, who carries them, or who uses them. There is no standardized license, registration or control system so a lot of guns end up in the hands of unstable people or get into the black market. Imagine how crime could be fought if a gun used in a crime was foudn to be registered to someone who then admits selling it illegally.

We have records of cars, houses, etc.. licenses for various things and requirements for safety in many areas but guns we go hands off because of some misconceived notion of how hte constitution works.

The goal is not to make gun ownership difficult, just to make gun owners responsible. Given all the guns leglaly bought but ending up in the hands of children or murderers means that there is a lack of responsibility in how guns are bought owned and transferred. I can find out who owned my house since it was built and how much they paid but a gun can be sold at a show with no records at times.

 

[UsualName]

%%
I learned that as a kid;
+ i trust the private sector much more than any gov infringement.
THE 10 commandments of gun safety are not that complicated.
Lawful gun owners have so few accidents , thank God .
OUR southern state has a required hunter safety course , with 10 commandments; its age related .
Bottom line\ look @ hi crime/ hi taxes /hi gun regs , in NY, CA, Chicago ................
Good points on live fire {+wear ear muffs-LOL]

The private sector led to houses being built with asbestos and lead pipes, spoiled land, air and water, ponzi schemes, drinking and driving, smoking everywhere just to name a few.

Believe it or not, sometimes a little government isnt a bad thing.

 

[murray t turtle]

The private sector led to houses being built with asbestos and lead pipes, spoiled land, air and water, ponzi schemes, drinking and driving, smoking everywhere just to name a few.

Believe it or not, sometimes a little government isnt a bad thing.

%%
Exactly;
+ lead pipes just goes to show you a little gov can be a good thing. Depending on big gov for water??
LOL; for water,, i prefer prayer + private sector. No wonder private sector bottled water chartt in WSJ = giant uptrend better than Coke/mountain Dew /yahoo

 

[UsualName]

%%
Exactly;
+ lead pipes just goes to show you a little gov can be a good thing. Depending on big gov for water??
LOL; for water,, i prefer prayer + private sector. No wonder private sector bottled water chartt in WSJ = giant uptrend better than Coke/mountain Dew /yahoo

It’s probably worthwhile to note today is the 50th anniversary of the Clean Water Act.

 

[gwb-trading]

It’s probably worthwhile to note today is the 50th anniversary of the Clean Water Act.

Remember to wish it a happy 50th birthday before SCOTUS refers it to Dr. Kevorkian.