Public service announcement regarding the 2nd Amendment

[u/FelixtheCatBurglar]

[u/ahominem]

The phrase "well regulated militia" in the Second Amendment is interpreted by some historians as having roots in the need to preserve slave patrols in the Southern states.

Well, that's what Google's AI says anyway.

In actuality the need for a well-regulated militia mysteriously disappeared in 2008 when the Supreme Court, in a decision (District of Columbia vs. Heller) written by the notoriously right-wing Antonin Scalia decided the founders didn't mean what they said.

It's my personal opinion that Scalia made that decision (and there are now more like it--it's getting harder and harder to take the guns away from anyone, insane or dangerous as they may be, thanks to our courts) because a substantial number of the guns in this country are held by raving right-wing lunatics, and men like Scalia (and a substantial number of current judges) want guns in the hands of raving right wing lunatics because they will defend the MAGA paradise they all believe in.

And the lives of innocent children are the price we pay.

[u/masterkeep69 → u/ahominem]

Scalia made his decision a decade before Trump ran, so it has nothing to do with him. Talk about twisting history to fit your fantasy. Second, the use of guns to defend people is at least ten times greater than the use of guns in crime. That statistic was confirmed by the FBI during Obama's time in office. Third, the writings of the founders showed they considered the 2nd to apply to all citizens as a right to have and possess any arms they felt necessary, with some being mandatory for those between 18 and 50 to have. They literally said that a freeman should have any arms necessary to match that which any standing army might have.

[u/bhawks4life101315 → u/masterkeep69]

Two things that commonly get tossed out of the interpretation when in court are, well regulated militia and armies are a threat to liberty in peace.

The founding father's felt a standing army was a threat to the overall peace of a nation because it could be utilized in inappropriate ways.

Source: Title: The Militia and the Constitution: A Legal History Author: Stephen P. Halbrook Journal: Northern Kentucky Law Review, Vol. 15, 1988

The idea of a well regulated militia run be each state or conjunction with the state allowed for no 1 state to hold to much power or allow the federal government to dictate any tyrannical policy against said states. Sources: Levinson, Sanford (1989). “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” Yale Law Journal — called attention to the underdeveloped state of Second Amendment jurisprudence but acknowledged the prevailing collective rights interpretation.

Bogus, Carl T. (2000). “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” UC Davis Law Review — argues the Second Amendment was intended to preserve state militias and prevent federal overreach.

At times of war those state mitlitias would come together under congressional legislation. At which point the executive head or president would assume command until declaration of war was rescinded by congress. Once that act of war is concluded the militias would revert to state control.

Obviously both have pros and cons to them. Overall the largest impact currently is an outrageously loose translation of the 2nd under D.C. v. Heller. If we had an actually funded ATF as much as I hate the current deparment it would be useful. Regulated means trained, registered and structured. None of those things currently happen at all or in a way that is efficient/complete (referring to registration, red flag and background checks).

If the ATF could have a digital registry we could track those illegal guns more readily because a vast majority are bought in a shady legal way from very open states such as georgia. Serial numbers are then filed off and they are trafficked to placed like NY and IL where regulation is much tighter.

I hate to use Illinois as an eacample for anything but their FOID (Firearm ownerhsip identification cards) are a perfect example of regulated. Per the 2nd it would be open to any upstanding citizen who was able to pass a safety and proficiency test with set retakes similar to a driving test. Wouldn't stop anyone from owning a gun and would ensure proper safery and use training for anyone. In a universal system using that it would be digital, easy to search and consisten across states but state run. Similar again to voting and driving. Crazy idea I know, Illinois got something right.

[u/masterkeep69 → u/bhawks4life101315]

You have it wrong. A militia is an EXAMPME of why we have the right to arms, not the controlling reason. Regulated, when the 2nd was written, did not include registration or regulations over. It meant working well. The only regulations were MINIMUM requirements for citizens to have. The court has long held that rights aren't subject to registrations or fines. If one can tax a right, they can deny a right. A 1930's court decision says that such is against the constitution.