I borrowed this from a friend...I like it a lot...

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Our system says we have to abide by SCOTUS decisions, but that doesn't mean they have decided correctly. Either in a general moral sense, or in the stricter sense of correctly interpreting law.

If that were true, we'd have to live with Plessy v. Ferguson, or consider Citizens United a masterpiece of jurisprudence. Stare decisis applies, but the Court does reverse itself, or we'd be stuck with Plessy and never have had Brown vs. Board.

So, though I've had these arguments with many folk many times, what Justice Scalia or others on SCOTUS believe do not negate that the Constitution discusses the very Militia the 2nd amendment references. Thus, there is an easy way to understand what is being referred to; it's mentioned elsewhere in the document.

This is one of those specifically enumerated powers conservatives/originalists love to talk about; this is something the Constitution directly and specifically says government must do.

Article I Section 8 clause 15:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Also see: Militia Act of 1792:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Like I've said 8000 times, and will repeat, though the militia was called up from the people, not all people were considered eligible, and were not part of it until the executive authority did so, and that militia was supposed to be disciplined, one source of discipline being regulation of the firearms they had access to.

Also, BTW, despite what some mouth-foamers claim, one of the key functions of the militia was to PUT DOWN insurrections AGAINST the government. NOT OVERTHROW IT.

[upaloopa]

1. I also read that one of the reasons for militias

was to capture and return run away slaves.

[Hoyt]

2. Excellent post. I also recommend Stevens' Dissent in Heller.

[billh58]

3. Heller:

A right-wing decision by right-wing extremists, for right-wing radicals, and embraced by right-leaning "liberals."

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

4. Yep...

[flamin lib]

5. Refreshing to see a saliva free look at what is in the constitution and

a consideration of the document in toto. Pretty good look at the history of SCOTUS decisions too. They, both founding fathers and court justices, are mortal and falible.

[jimmy the one]

6. compare miller with heller

NJNP: Our system says we have to abide by SCOTUS decisions, but that doesn't mean they have decided correctly. Either in a general moral sense, or in the stricter sense of correctly interpreting law.

Exactly. And remember the heller 2008 as well as 2010 McDonald decision was a 5-4 ruling, the 4 more liberal justices ruling for the militia interpretation, while the 4 rightwing justices & middling kennedy for the individual RKBA. It's sad that headuphisass Thomas even had a say in this, just voted as 'massah scalia' tole him to - & yes I am implying he's pretty much a slave to scalia - (I'll counter any backlash with how I worked for Obama's election 2008 & voted for him twice & have kudos in civil rights. I'm not so keen on cosby anymore either).

Contrast the scotus 5-4 heller decision with the 1939 miller decision, which was unanimous 8-0 (one justice recused since he just arrived on scene near trial started, but he later was pro guncontrol).
This is what the 8 justices agreed to in 1939:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.'
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=307&page=174

You'd think, that if any of those 8 justices felt 2ndA intended an individual RKBA, at least one of them would've piped up & said 'look how we worded that, future generations are going to think we intended for a militia-centric interpretation and not an individual right, we better change something in our wording'.
But not one of them thunk to do that.

Mr. Justice DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

7. I was curious why none of our gun friends have commented...

Outside of this forum I am relentlessly "commented on" when I bring up the need to enforce the 2nd.

[jimmy the one]

8. hot off the presses

Jan 27, 2015 Justice Stevens Pens Six Amendments to Tune-Up Constitution

Since William Rehnquist {dead a while back} joined the Supreme Court, it has made several rulings that have knocked the U.S. Constitution out of whack. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who deliberated on most of those rulings, has written six amendments to fix the damage and tune-up the Constitution.

6. Gun Control: For more than two hundred years, federal judges have, according to Stevens {and millions others}, uniformly understood the Second Amendment to be limited in two ways. One, that it applies only for military purposes, and two, that, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not limit the power of state or local governments to regulate ownership or use of firearms.
Thus, in 1939 the Court ruled unanimously that Congress could ban possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to "a well regulated Militia."
But the Roberts Court has twice ruled against governments trying to tamp down gun violence. In 2008, a 5-4 majority, citing the Second Amendment, threw out a Washington, D.C., law and created a new Constitutional right for a civilian in D.C. to keep an enabled handgun at home for self-defense.
And in 2010, the same 5-4 Court, citing the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, threw out a Chicago handgun ban, and extended the Court's newly-created Constitutional right to the states.
To restore the Second Amendment to its original meaning, and to return the power of regulating firearms to state and local governments, Stevens adds five words to the Second Amendment:

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

Putting Stevens' amendments through looks like a long row to hoe. But, as Bertrand Russell once said of his own proposal for political change, "[T]he difficulty ... does not diminish the desirability of such a change." And Stevens is undaunted: As time passes, I am confident that the soundness of each of my proposals will become more and more evident, and that ultimately each will be adopted. The purpose of this book is to expedite that process and to avoid future crises before they occur. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/28/1360644/-Justice-Stevens-Pens-Six-Amendments-to-Tune-Up-Constitution?detail=email

[jimmy the one]

9. sorry to hijack your thread!

Here's two more of Justice Stevens proposed amendments. The first pertains via the brady act, the second on gerrymandering is a pet peeve & indirectly related to rightwing progun lawmakers:

1. The "Anti-Commandeering" Rule: In 1997, by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court, created an "anti-commandeering" rule, which bans Congress from ordering state officials to carry out federal duties.
The case was brought by two county sheriffs, who did not want to do background checks for firearm sales as ordered by the Brady Act. The new rule led to holes in the database that would allow persons prone to violence, like the killer in the 2007 Virginia Tech mass shooting, to get firearms. Stevens notes that the "anti-commandeering" rule could also cripple other Congressional acts, from routine administration of federal programs to emergency responses to national catastrophes or acts of terror. His fix adds four words (in bold below) to the Constitution's Supremacy Clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges and other public officials in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

2. Political Gerrymandering: Given that he has not heard one word in favor of political gerrymandering from any federal judge, Stevens believes that his amendment addressing it should sail through into law. He points out that, in addition to making legislative districts less representative and less competitive, political gerrymandering tends to give us candidates with more extreme positions. In 1986 the Supreme Court made it practically impossible to challenge gerrymanders by setting a lofty and cloudy standard: "[A] finding of unconstitutionality must [show] continued frustration of the will of a majority of the voters or effective denial to a minority of the voters of a fair chance to influence the political process." Stevens takes a simpler view: "Just as a controlling political party may not use public funds to pay its campaign expenses, it is also quite wrong to use public power for the sole purpose of enhancing the political strength of the majority party."
He would ban that abuse of power with this new amendment:

{evidently a new one by stevens}: Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historic boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/28/1360644/-Justice-Stevens-Pens-Six-Amendments-to-Tune-Up-Constitution?detail=email

[guillaumeb]

10. Thoughts on the 2nd Amendment

Clearly the 2nd Amendment gives to the federal government the authority to regulate firearms. But the Republicans are not debating the Constitution, they are setting a framework for the debate.
Republicans know that fear works. Fear triggers adrenaline which enables the body to react to danger. The thought process is secondary. Republicans have sold Americans on the idea that only by possessing a personal gun can an individual American be protected from the evil Federal government.
That personal gun is a real symbol for many Americans that they are free, even if they are working a minimum wage McJob, living in a rented residence with no real hope of changing their circumstances, they are still free WHITE Americans. I said WHITE because many so-called 2nd Amendment absolutists are not so keen on the idea of armed black folk. (Always have to watch for a slave revolt you know)
You know, the same evil government that built the sewer system, the airports, the court system, social security, interstate highways, monitors the food and water supply. All those things that we all benefit from.
Until we can find a way to reframe the debate the gun issue will remain as it is. In my opinion.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

11. Translation: fear...of course you are right.

It is why I always ask the question, which future reflects evolution:

one where every person has ten guns

one where nobody has any guns

The obvious answer is the no gun future...so we either evolve or devolve...