Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Emotionally invested? Ok let's have some fun, You stated "Heller was judicial activism." You supported this by saying "Creating an individual right when the word person(s) or individual is not found in the plain language (and militia is plural) is activism. Waiting for conservative majority is activism. That’s why it took over 100 years (to 2008) for it to happen.Politics, not law. Just like Roe." .
Let's address "when the word person(s) or individual is not found in the plain language" . You're right, "person(s)" is not in the second amendment, do you know what is? The word "people" let's go ahead and define that using the 1828 webster's dictionary found here webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/peo……
"PEOPLE, noun [Latin populus.] 1. The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, or any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country"
Lets go ahead and add a source from 1773 johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/views/search.p……
"Pe'ople. n.s. [peuple, Fr. populus, Lat.] 1. A nation; these who compose a community. In this sense is read peoples.
Using these two definitions we can see that when "people" or more accurately "the right of the people" is used in the second amendment and other amendments such as
The first amendment "the right of the people peaceably to assemble"
The fourth "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"
The Ninth "the people"
and the 10th "to the people"
They are referring to rights that belong to everyone and is exercised by the individuals.
But let's go on, let's dive into what is considered the first American treatise, written by St. George Tucker, a Revolutionary War veteran, a prominent lawyer and judge at both state and federal levels. He laid a key cornerstone in shifting legal training from clerkships to a more academic approach.
Blackstone’s Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws, of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia (1803)
(Note: He was writing this as the bills where being ratified and as such the second amendment is referred to as the 4th as it was not changed before publication after the original first two amendments failed ratification)
Using this source famguardian.org/PublishedAutho……
Under [Section 12 - Restraints on Powers of Congress] famguardian.org/PublishedAutho……
Part 8 "8. 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."
I have put in bold the most relevant parts, notice that all of them are indicating individuals exercising the right, not militias, it the individual's in England that have been disarmed, not the militias. It talks about restrictions worked into the english bill of rights that allows them to qualify who may have arms and set restrictions and the use of hunting restrictions to disarm the people.
Now onto [Section 13 - Restraints on Powers of Congress (cont.)] famguardian.org/PublishedAutho……
At the end of what has been designated Restraints on Powers of Congress we run into this gem that summarizes the section, this is the end sentence. "The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion."
He groups both the first and second amendment, no mention of the militia only "the people" Now onto the second book
famguardian.org/PublishedAutho…
This is from blackstone himself, Tucker placed the 40 and 41 indicating his thoughts on this.
"5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence 40 suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. 41 Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2. c. 2, and it is indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."
Of course we will start with 40
40. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
We see here that he left off the first part of the second amendment, and only states "the right of the PEOPLE" he then states that unlike England there are no restrictions on the amendment, there's no requirement to be a protestant, or more appropriately for this discussion, part of the militia in order to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
41 is a bit long and doesn't lend itself to this discussion so I wont post it, follow the link and use find word with 41 to locate it. He's basically making his distaste knows of "hunting regulations" used to disarm the people.
This end's Tuckers section
Next A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE United States of America. BY WILLIAM RAWLE, LL.D.
William Rawle was a attorney from Philadelphia, He served as a United States district attorney in Pennsylvania from 1791 to 1800 and argued before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1805 against the constitutionality of slavery.
In chapter 10
constitution.org/2-Authors/wr/r…
"In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."
Notice that he has two separate paragraphs one address the militia and the other the "right of the people" Notice that he states that if either the states or congress should attempt to disarm the people then the amendment should be appealed to as a restraint.
Let's address you'r source constitutioncenter.org/the-constituti…
First they stated
"The Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government, leaving the states to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Although there is substantial evidence that the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876)."
United States v. Cruikshank didn’t address this, as it dealt with private actors, not state action, and because they were private actors, found the Constitution inapplicable to them. In fact it was the duty of the state to stop private actors from infringing on others rights.
They later on say
"they technically ruled only that government may not ban the possession of handguns by civilians in their homes"
This is also false.
Heller came up with what is known as the common use test
"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”
"Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”
By the way since the founding of the republican party appointees have have held a majority of SCOTUS seats From 1869–1937 and then 1956–Present
So, no activism here—just dusting off what Tucker, Rawle, and the framers wrote. The militia’s plural? A red herring—its muscle is “the people,” individually armed. Waiting 100 years? More like untangling old dodges (Cruikshank, Miller) till the Court had the guts to call it. Politics? Maybe in timing—but the law’s been there since 1791. How’s that for a romp through the archives? Want to spar more?
Rod🚬Jackwell@CMucketymuck
@Indestinctradio @yanikmtandere @USCons_Amend_II It doesn’t matter what you read. You’re too emotionally invested so you can’t call balls and strikes. The fact that you can’t find any third-party support only proves my point. It also shows that you’re a self-important douche bag, Take the L dude.
English
