Second Amendment on the Peoria.com Forums

The Supreme Court appears poised to accept the only case regarding the Second Amendment since 1939, and possibly rule on whether it's an individual right or a collective right.

Before the nine justices weigh in, what are your feelings?

Does the Amendment guarantee an individual right? What, if any, limitations should be placed on that right? Surely, the founders could not have imagined the weaponry that would be available to the private citizen of today.

Well, if you take " 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" literally, it is an individual right. Why? Unlike today's military the Militia most likely did not provide you with a firearm; you brought your own; thusly individual right. And to whom do they refer to as "the people"? I would think they meant the common citizen, not as a collective group.

"Surely, the founders could not have imagined the weaponry that would be available to the private citizen of today."

And I'm sure they would have never thought that freedom of speech would have allowed burning of the US Flag or wearing a T-Shirt with the "F" word on it.

I'm not an expert on what weaponry a private citizen can LEGALLY get their hands on. To legally obtain some types of military or fully auto weapons, I understand their are some extensive background checks. I think the person who goes through that type of checks probably isn't going to take a bazooka to the Peoria Heights Water Tower....the guy who buys one illegally out of the back of a beat up Chevy van probably will. However, regardless of what and how much one may possess, if the US Army showed up with a couple of Apache helicopters and M1A2 Abrams tanks, that collection isn't sh*t.

I'm a firm beleiver in concealed carry for law abiding citizens who complete a 40-hour firearm course. The criminals are carrying concealed now, and have no formalized training. (except for the ones with military training). Why shouldn't a law abiding citizen be able to protect themselves? If I could, I would let my wife put a little .380 I have, in her purse.

I mean, if you think about it, what are you really buying when you buy a gun? Your not buying a gun, your buying a hole. You want to put a hole in something, right? We might as well teach people to get the hole where they want it.

If a law abiding citizen who owns a gun suddenly snaps(rare) and decideds that he wants to bust a cap in his neighbor because the neighbors leaves are falling in his yard, I'd rather that the nutcase hit his neighbor than an innocent kid somewhere.

Right now, the criminals know you are unarmed when they come up to you with a knife to rob you. Let's put some doubt in their head (or a hole).

Guns are here to stay. There are so many, that there will never be a chance of eliminating all of them. Lets train the law abiding citizens to use them, carry them and let the thugs run scared.

Peoria Parent -

As a gun owner, I tend to agree with you. However, I'm more concerned about idiotic laws that do nothing but deny possession of firearms by the law abiding citizen. The one that sizzled my fanny was when they were trying to pass a law that if you didn't have a trigger lock on your gun and it was stolen, if a crime was committed with the stolen gun, the rightful owner was to be held as an accessory! What kinda crap is that? Where are my rights?

Here is what I propose. Make any illegal use of a firearm a federal offense. Use a gun not legally owned by the user in a crime, 25 years in Rikers Island with 16 hour work days, no early release, no TV or other "luxuries". Discharge that weapon, add 10 more years. Wound someone, add 15. Kill someone. Never get out. Make the punishment for illegal use SO HORRIBLE that one would think several times before using an illegally possessed firearm. And if you are under 18, you go straight to the big house straight from Juvie, do not pass "GO", do not collect another illegal firearm. Ya pull the trigger at 15, you're at least 50 when you get out.

I agree with you, Kev. I wanna see people who use guns illegally, locked up for a long time. What gets me, is the people who blame guns for the crimes that are committed while using them. Guns aren't the problem here, murderers are the problem. There are thousands of way to kill someone. For instance:

A knife could be used, but it would seem a shame to split up that 23 piece Kershaw set with bamboo block, just to have your favorite Santoku knife sitting in an evidence locker somewhere.

A chainsaw is an option. But you have to mix the gas (is it 32:1 or 40:1, I can't remember). Push the primer, set the choke. Is this blade sharp enough?

Ah, my trusty hammer. The head seems a little loose on the handle. Plus, my grandpa gave me this hammer. I don't think he would approve of this home improvement project.

Here we go. My baseball bat. Although, I did throw out my elbow last time I swung it. Hate to go through rehab again. That was expensive and I don't think insurance would cover this one.

This porcelain German Shephard statue will surely turn someone's lights out. But one ear was already broken off and I had to glue it back on. Plus there is a noticable divit in the carpet where it sits. It would take months to brush that out.

I guess the gun will have to do it. (Hate to drive up the gun crime statistics, though).

Before commenting, I believe we need to revisit the founding fathers themselves and try to speculate what they thought and believed in order to put this into perspective. In today's terms, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al would be considered "terrorists". Rising up against what they believed to a controlling, tyranical government, rebelled/revolted with acts of violence and physical destruction of property. It was a time when state mottos like "Live free or die" actually meant something. A one cent stamp tax triggered all sorts of fervor. The founding fathers used any and all means available to protect/defend themselves, their property, their country, and their beliefs. Obviously they wanted the same for citizens of the US or they wouldn't had created the 2nd Amendment (with no restrictions) to begin with. These people were guinuine visionaries in my opinion and I believe they were smart enough to realize there would be technological advances in all facets of life and warfare (Jefferson himself was an inventor/innovator).

Realistically, what are the differences between a single shot, muzzle loaded, ball shot rifle (like used in the Revolutionary war days) and any weaponry of today (E.G. an AR-223)? With the exception of the speed of reloading and firing-nothing. They are capable of achieving the same thing.

I can't recall the source nor the verbatum quote here but I believe it was by a founding father and stated to the effect of "private gun ownership/possession if for nothing else should be used (as a last resort) to protect against a tryanical government".

As a private citizen- I have the God given right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness (so long as my rights do not infringe upon the rights of others). It is my perception that my right to life includes self-preservation by any means possible under any and all circumstances regardless.

Whether or not I need an item like a bazooka should not nor ever be the issue here. Whether or not I want one should be.

I don't see how anyone can agree with the collective right theory. How can "the right of the people" be an individual right in Amendment I, 26 words later in Amendment II it's a collective right, and another 41 words later, in the fourth, it's an individual right? I can't swallow that.

Some with the collective view say what about the "A well regulated militia", thinking this refers to a collective unit like the National Guard or a state entity.
NOPE, NOT EVEN CLOSE. First let's look at sentence structure;
This is an introdcutory clause. As a prefactory declaration in interperting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate the operative language but is ultimately subordinate to that language.

In the eighteenth century, the proper approach to interpreting a substantive or “operative” legal provision to which a lawmaker had joined a declaration (whether a “Whereas” clause or analogous language) was (1) to seek to interpret the operative provision on its own, and (2) then to look to the declaration only to clarify any ambiguity remaining in the operative provision.
(source;Norman J. Singer, 2A Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 47.04, at 220 & 223 (6th ed. 2000); see James Kent, 1 Commentaries on American Law 516 (9th ed. 1858)

The prefactory clause is a justification of the individual right. That a necessary condition for an effective citizen milita, and for the "free state" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms.

The prefactory clause, standing alone, may seem to the modern reader to suggest the collective theory; however, language aside, the meaning of the words are different now. At the time of the Founding the word "milita" meant all able bodied males, not a collective of state controled soliders.

The militia “rest[ed] upon the shoulders of the people,"
(source; Nordyke v. King, 364 F.3d 1025, 1031 (9th Cir. 2004)

Furthermore, the Militia Act of 1792, required personal ownership of arms for militia service. Since these were personally owned, it makes little sense to argue that the second amendment applies solely to the militia.

More toward the individual right view is the word "right" or "rights". Not once in the Constitution is a right applied to anything other than an individual. Never is a right recoginized for any govermental entity, either state or federal.

All doubt should vanish when "right" is conjoined with "the people". The right belongs to the "people" not the "state" or "milita". Yes all three words are used in Amendment II, yet it secures a "right" only to "the people".

The term "the right of the people" appears two other times in The Bill or Rights, both secure an indivudual right (I & IV). Neither Amendment can be construed to mean a collective such as a milita or state.

Then, never finally, there is the bank of writings of the Founders which resounds and expands on the individual right.

I welcome any arguments based on logic not emotion. Hell, let's talk about U.S. v Miller, or perhaps the "shall not be infringed" text.

Molon Labe!

I always laugh when someone tries to 'interpret' what the founding Fathers intended. What they 'intended' is right there in the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.
By putting a 21st century 'spin' on their 'intentions' you negate their intent.

My personal belief is that the founding Fathers were intelligent enough to fear 'government', in any form, and placed the second amendment in the Bill of Rights to ensure that the populace would be able to resist 'government' if the need arose.

Least we forget April 18th 1775. 700 redcoats didn't cross Boston Harbor to take away tea, they came for the Colonists guns and munitions.
Here's a quote from someone who heard that first shot, half way around the world and 150 years later...
“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.” –Mahatma Gandhi

SGN Rob......I have no idea what you just wrote, but I hope you're on my side.

I must admit the intellectual level of this thread far surpasses the intellect I have available... but I will say that I want at least what the bad guy has!

That's impossible, Diane.....you can't legally own what the bad guys have!

(expanding on Solo'post)- He's correct in my opinion and I agree as to what and where the content/intent of the founding fathers can be found. Those documents being considered "living and breathing" many legislative acts require modern day "spin" to be enacted. An example- Drug laws were intially considered unconstitutional (unrestricted personal use of any drug). Then they (the drug laws) evolved into the "Pure Food and Drug Act" (control and restriction) in the early 1900's thus doing an end around the constitution. The Nixon administration finally made a list of certain drugs illegal possess in 1970 with the Controlled Substance Act (outright banning of personal use and possession).

As per connection with the 2nd amendment- Before the 1930's (if my history is correct) there were no federal gun laws until the National Firearms Act (which included contol and restriction of possession firearms like machine guns). Expanded with the 1968 Gun Control Act- to define who can and can't own, possess a firearm (further restriction and control- laws similar in Germany right before the Nazis rose to power). Then the Brady Bill. Finally, the Federal Assault Weapon ban in 1994. All these acts were given modern day spin at the time to be enacted. The same people who provide the spin on something that I believe is clear with no need for interpretation... are the same people (politicians and judges) who pass/interpret/enact/enforce all legislation to begin with.

The unfortunate thing is the masses are allowing the spin to tug at their emotions and cloud their judgement. People want all this safety and security- but want someone else to provide it (like the police/military... government agencies).

I love the muzzle loader argument and the comparison to automatic weapons. A muzzle loader was state of the art at the time and on par with what governments had. If the founding fathers intent was to have the general population limited to smaller less effective weaponry than a government would have access to they would have had exceptions for no private ownership of canons ect.

In case anyone missed it, the SCOTUS has postponed a decision on D.C. v Heller until at least November 26th.

the technology debate is moot...
The National Firearms Act of 1934 which was a prodcut of the case U.S. v Miller. Wherein the defendant, Miller, was absent during the procedures. The court basically said that his sawed off shotgun was outlawed because that type of weapon was not/had never been in military use. (it had in the form of the Winchester M 1897 trench-gun) By that logic, all weapons in use by the military are legal. The court went further and required a title for certain guns like machine guns, however they did remain legal to own.
This snubbed the whole modern weapon/muzzle loader argument some 70 years ago, 20 years before the advent of the AK and AR rifles that are the focus of most of this type of BS.

More frightning is the GCA, Gun Control Act of 1968. This POS is a copy of the Nazi gun control act and introdcued the "sporting purpose" text that directly contridicts the NFA. The GCA legislation is a copy of laws that were ment to disarm a undesireable population, right before loading those people on trains to the gas chamber.
There is a good article in the new Playboy that suggests that the GCA was enacted to curtail gun ownership among poor southern blacks. I don't know how much I agree with that but it was an interesting point.

Whether most people know it or not the 2nd amendment to the constitution has already been rendered moot by certain sections of the Homeland Security act/bill.
IF the President of the U.S. declares martial law any citizen can be rounded up & detained for 'their own protection' plus their weapons (and that means ALL of them) can be confiscated w/o any trial, hearing or due process happening AT ALL!
And, martial law can be declared for ANY resaon, Nat'l disaster, civil unrest,etc.
So, everyone who wants the gov't to protect them & are willing to allow the gov't to arbitrarily disarm them get what they deserve.