2nd ammendment vs 4th ammendment

[Wcross]

Amendment II

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.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It seems to me that "people" is NOT a collective term.
How can we be collectivly be secure in our persons,houses,papers, and effects? Some may argue that "persons" refers to the individual, it is clear to me they are refering to the right not to be searched on the street without probable cause. I believe that this clears up the "collective rights arguement".

[hueyfreeman]

1. What's your point?

[Wcross]

6. Point is- some people don't read the whole post!

[iverglas]

2. sigh ... it's really so simple

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, ..."

In this sentence, "the people" is a COLLECTIVE NOUN. It is like "cattle". It is treated, grammatically, as PLURAL, because it is composed of a bunch of individual things.

We can tell this, because the possessive pronoun used in reference to the "people" is "THEIR".

A PEOPLE doesn't have persons or houses. PEOPLE do have persons and houses. Therefore the reference is to THEIR persons and houses, not ITS persons and houses.

Check a dictionary. The word "people" can be singular or plural. It can refer to a thing, OR TO a bunch of things.

The confusion may arise when we realize that when "people" is used as a collective noun, it isn't the kind of "people" that has collective rights.

See? *A* people HAS collective rights. It's a SINGULAR noun. IT is the thing that HAS the rights.

Once again ... the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says:

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

A plural noun can't be pluralized. We'd be having peopleseses before long. The "people" in this context is a singular noun, and the rights that it has are collective rights. Those rights belong to the "collectivity" that is referred to by the singular noun "people".

A class in a school consists of many individuals. But the class itself is singular. It is a collectivity. IT may have the right to, say, elect a representative to the students' council.

The members of the class do not have that right. The class has that right. It is a collective right.


There is absolutely no reason why a word that has two meanings in English cannot be used in different contexts in a single document to mean two different things. Especially by people who had never had the opportunity to consider the fine points of rights theory and constitutional interpretation, since really -- neither of those things had been in existence, if at all, much longer than they themselves had been alive at the time.

"How can we be collectivly be secure in our persons,houses,papers, and effects? Some may argue that 'persons' refers to the individual, it is clear to me they are refering to the right not to be searched on the street without probable cause."

They are in fact referring to the individuals' BODIES, obviously. The right to be secure in one's person is the right not to have one's person -- one's body -- interfered with. Again, check a dictionary: "person - the living body of a human being".

And there you have it:

Amendment V

No PERSON shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, ...

PERSON, used in the space of a couple of paragraphs to mean two completely different things.

"... I believe that this clears up the 'collective rights arguement'."

Ah, life is so simple. Me, I'd just never think of pretending that it was ...

.

[DoNotRefill]

3. That totally ignores...

that the Supreme Court has ruled that the right of the people in the 4th Amendment IS an individual right, NOT a collective right. You can babble on and on about stuff that has ZERO relevance to US law (review the difference between persuasive precedent and binding precedent), which is the subject of this thread, but it doesn't change squat. In a legal context in the US, "people" in the Fourth Amendment means individuals. That's BLACK LETTER LAW.

[iverglas]

5. for fuck's sake

"In a legal context in the US, "people" in the Fourth Amendment means individuals. That's BLACK LETTER LAW."

What the christ did you imagine that I SAID??

Here's a hint: THAT IS WHAT I SAID.

.

[DoNotRefill]

11. So then why the rant...

about "people" being a collective noun? Is this an English lesson? Are we going to diagram sentences next???? Please Please Please!!! ;-)

[DoNotRefill]

4. Oh, yeah...

"There is absolutely no reason why a word that has two meanings in English cannot be used in different contexts in a single document to mean two different things."

Sure there is.

"PERSON, used in the space of a couple of paragraphs to mean two completely different things."

Are you sure you really want to argue this?

[iverglas]

7. now what?

me: "PERSON, used in the space of a couple of paragraphs to mean two completely different things."
you: "Are you sure you really want to argue this?"

"ARGUE" it?

I was not arguing anything.

I was stating a really simple and really obvious fact.


In Amendment IV,

The right of the people to be secure
in their persons, ...

the word "person" means "body". Just like it says in the dictionary: "the living body of a human being".


In Amendment V,

No person shall be held to answer for
a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, ...

the word "person" means "individual". Just like it says in the dictionary: "an individual human being".

Same word, two different meanings, two consecutive paragraphs, same document.

Perhaps you can explain why I would want to ignore this fact?

.

[DoNotRefill]

12. Because you're really the Queen Mum?

At least that's what you said elsewhere... ;-)

[Wcross]

8. The fifth?

They refered to person only because the people (everyone) wouldn't be charged with a crime- just one guy. Why would it be neccesary to aknowledge that everybody (people) had a right that wouldn't be invoked until accused of a crime? The entire people couldn't be accused of a crime- just one person. I reckon thats why they said person in the fifth. The people don't use that right, just the accused.

The people couldn't possibly "bear arms". How would we collectivly carry or bear a weapon? Couldn't be done could it? I suppose it would be possible to "keep" arms collectivly, bearing (carrying) would be impossible to accomplish collectivly.

[iverglas]

9. omigod

"The entire people couldn't be accused of a crime- just one person. I reckon thats why they said person in the fifth. The people don't use that right, just the accused."

You reckon, do you?

WELL SO DO I.

Does everybody here get immediately pissed out of their minds when the 5 pm clocking off bell rings, and keep posting anyway??

"The people couldn't possibly "bear arms". How would we collectivly carry or bear a weapon? Couldn't be done could it?"

I don't know.

How could a class elect a representative to the students' council?

Hmm, how could they collectively do that? Gosh, it couldn't be done, could it? Why, each of them would have to cast a vote, ... ... ...

Yup. A class would exercise its collective right to elect a representative to the students' council by the individuals who made up the clss voting FOR A REPRESENTATIVE. The individuals would STILL NOT HAVE a right to elect a representative to the students' council, because that right BELONGS TO THE CLASS.

And a people would exercise its collective right to bear arms by the individuals in the people hauling muskets around with them FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE FREE STATE.

That's the hypothesis. I have not taken a position on it, if anybody remembers. It would just be damned luvverly if someone, anyone, understood what THE ISSUE is.

.

[Wcross]

13. Wise guy

"Does everybody here get immediately pissed out of their minds when the 5 pm clocking off bell rings, and keep posting anyway??"

No, I usually wait for sundown- but by all means, indulge if you wish.


"And a people would exercise its collective right to bear arms by the individuals in the people hauling muskets around with them FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE FREE STATE.

That's the hypothesis. I have not taken a position on it, if anybody remembers. It would just be damned luvverly if someone, anyone, understood what THE ISSUE is."

So the term "people" can be interpeted two different ways to suit your needs? That dog doesn't hunt.

See the quote from old Sam Adams;

The Constitution of the United States shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.

-- Samuel Adams, During the Massachusetts U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788





Keep trying- You know that old saying "throw enough shit on the wall, maybe something will stick".

[hansberrym]

25. you're almost getting it.

"Yup. A class would exercise its collective right to elect a representative to the students' council by the individuals who made up the class voting FOR A REPRESENTATIVE. The individuals would STILL NOT HAVE a right to ELECT a representative to the students' council, because that right BELONGS TO THE CLASS."

As you say, individuals "vote" but "a people" collectively "elect".

A people (Collectively) does not vote, nor does an individual "elect"
a representative.

As in your own usage; "A class would exercise its collective right to ELECT a representative ..." (my emphasis)

Note that you did NOT say "A class would exercise its collective right to VOTE a representative..." since that would not have made sense. Individuals have a right to vote, but a people has a collective right to elect a representative. When individuals exercise thier individual right to vote by voting, they contribute to the collective activity. But the activity they individually perform(voting) is still an individual activity in the same way that "bearing arms" is an individual activity.



The use of a collective noun does not mean that the right in question is a collective right, as we have seen from the Fourth Amendment. What is important is whether "the people" refers to the members of the group considered as individuals(plural), or only as a whole (Singular).

From The American Heritage® Book of English Usage 1996:
"Some nouns, like committee, clergy, enemy, group, family, and team, refer to a group but are singular in form. These nouns are called collective nouns. In American usage, a collective noun takes a singular verb when it refers to the collection considered as a whole, as in The family was united on this question or The enemy is suing for peace. It takes a plural verb when it refers to the members of the group considered as individuals, as in My family are always fighting among themselves or The enemy were showing up in groups of three or four to turn in their weapons. In British usage, collective nouns are more often treated as plurals: The government have not announced a new policy. The team are playing in the test matches next week. 1
Be careful not to treat a collective noun as both singular and plural in the same construction. Thus you should say The family is determined to press its (not their) claim."
{end quote}


From the legislative history of the Second Amendment we know that they were referring to the actions of individuals when they spoke and wrote of "bearing arms".

From the ratification debates:

Madison: “…no person scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person ”. (my emphasis)

George Wyethe of the Virginia convention: “…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”

From the Rhode Island convention: (identical to Wyethe)
“…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”
{end quote}



Since "BEARING ARMS" refers to an individual's actions in the Second Amendment in the same way that "VOTING" refers to an individual's actions in your example, the right to bear arms is best interpreted as an individual right.


From the Pennsylvania Constitution:

“ The right of the people to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.”


Again, note the use of "themselves", and not "itself".



Determining the meaning of the second amendment is not simple, but it is not impossible either. If we look at the amendment in the context of which it was written, it seems very unlikely that they were talking about an exclusively Collective right belonging only to the group collectively, since the actions that there is a right to perform are actions which individuals were to perform.

The action of keeping and bearing arms was to be done by individuals, not by the group collectively. Since "keeping and Bearing arms" is more like "VOTING" than "ELECTING", the right to keep and bear is most likely an individual right in the same way that voting is an individual right.

Also the qualifier ("for the common defense" )that historically followed the phrase "right of the people to keep and bear arms" was rejected in committee.

Note that there is no qualifying phrase, not even "in defense of themselves and the state" attached to the right as stated in the Second Amendment.

Many times the collective rights advocates assert that the first phrase should be read as a qualifier referring to the right that is acknowedged later. But this is an odd argument since the "preamble" as they like to call it is not written as a qualifier.


Only by assuming multiple grammatical errors and putting aside the actual legislative history, can the collective rights advocates claim that the interpretation they urge is as likely as any other.

Since the amendment can be interpreted as an individual right with an associated collective interest(security of a free state) without resorting to an assumption of grammatical error, or the putting aside of verifiable legislative history, this would seem to be the far better interpretation.

[library_max]

10. I think this thread makes a very useful point

though probably not the one the original poster intended.

The Fourth Amendment sets as its context "the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects . . ." The Second Amendment sets as its context "A well regulated militia," which no longer exists. If the founders had intended the 2nd Amendment to provide weapons for private citizens to use in defending their homes and families, why was the Second Amendment not prefaced in the same way as the Fourth?

[Wcross]

14. Doesn't say anything about hunting either

It didn't have to. The main reason of firearms ownership would be militia service. Would they have to list hunting and defense of oneself as well to aknowledge those rights?

"the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses,"
Should that be construed to mean they should be able to search apartments? An apartment is not a house is it? Why didn't they state apartment? Secure in their papers? So your computer is fair game?

Wishful thinking. If they had intended the right to keep and bear arms to apply only collectivly while in militia service, wouldn't they have stated " the right of the militia members to keep and bear arms,not be infringed"?

[hijinks]

17. hate to burst your bubble but...

...militia in the second implies individuals just as much as homes in the forth.

militia means all of the people, just look at how the us code defines it...

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

What did hamilton have to say about the militia in federalist 29?

"Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?"

So the RKBA is limited to 'state militia' even though hamilton said "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "

An organized state militia that is assembled once or twice a year? Nope.

And the deathblow to the collective rights pantload:

``But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

So we have a small select corps, but we are guaranteed that they will not be detrimental to liberty because there is a "large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. "

By 'large body of citizens' they must have ment the organized state guard forces!

lol.

[library_max]

30. But you're not speaking to my point

Which is that the militia, as such, as you define it, is obsolete, kaput, gone and not coming back. Therefore, it is irrelevant how the founding fathers understood it. My very point is that the founding fathers intended the 2nd Amendment in the context of militias and only in the context of militias, and that, militias being obsolete, the 2nd Amendment is likewise. Everything you have said only supports my point.

[hijinks]

15. the founding fathers were too stupid...

...to use the word 'state' when they ment 'state' so they just used 'people' for 'state' in the second.

Err, nevermind, they were smart enough to use 'state' when they ment 'state'.

"Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for elect ors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.

"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative"

"When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. "

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

"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,"

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

So is 'people' in Amendment 10 collective or individual? Why would they need to refer to states and people seperatly if they were the same thing? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Wcross]

16. There you go

Dang it, I hate it when someone throws out facts when debating the anti-rights crowd.

Next thing you know, we are going to hear about how racist the founding fathers were and they were influenced by the NRA and A$$croft.

[hijinks]

18. I won't even mention that the second amendment...

...itself uses the word state.

[Wcross]

19. I think you drove the nail in Hijinks

It is quiet, too quiet- yet I know they are out there, circling, waiting to pounce. If only they could get a cranial rectal inversion, they may have a response!

BWAAAAAAAAAAA!

[hijinks]

20. you would think...

... that they could at least call it a pantload.

[demsrule4life]

21. or

cry me a river.

[jody]

22. Yes and it qualifies that as a "free state". The phrase "free state"

is singular not plural and is used in a number of state constitutions adopted before the US constitution was written, e.g. Virginia`s constitution, 29 June 1776
QUOTE
SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. {emphasis added}
UNQUOTE

The states were sovereign under the Articles of Confederation and they did not give up their right to maintain state militias when they ratified the US Constitution. The phrase "free state" in the Second Amendment means the same as it does in Virginia's constitution until someone proves otherwise.

[Wcross]

23. Stunning silence?

Is Benchley dead? What happened to iver?

I will cry a river.

Theres a tear in my beer, cause I'm cryin over you.
( sounds real bad when I sing it- you get the point!)

[jody]

24. "Congress has provided by statute that in addition to its National Guard,

a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own." PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)

A state's defense force would include members of the "unorganized militia".

[IndividualLiberties]

26. It really doesn't matter if it's deemed a collective Right or an individua

It really doesn't matter if it's deemed a collective Right or an individual Right. (Although I'm not sure how a collective can possess a Right that individuals aren't allowed to exercise.)

The reason it doesn't matter.........

Amendment IX
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Even if an individual Right is not ACKNOWLEDGED (Remember, that is all the Bill of Rights does after all, it doesn't Grant Rights.) that does not mean that the unalienable Right to Life (and it's defense) is not still retained by the people individually.

[jody]

27. I agree. eom

[Liberal Classic]

28. People is a collective term, it means person plural

Main Entry: 1col·lec·tive
Pronunciation: k&-'lek-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : denoting a number of persons or things considered as one group or
whole <flock is a collective word>
2 a : formed by collecting : AGGREGATED b of a fruit : MULTIPLE
3 a : of, relating to, or being a group of individuals b : involving all members
of a group as distinct from its individuals
4 : marked by similarity among or with the members of a group
5 : collectivized or characterized by collectivism
6 : shared or assumed by all members of the group <collective
responsibility>
- col·lec·tive·ly adverb


However, there are some people that interpret the word 'people' to be defintion #3b, which is the collective as an entity distinct from its individuals, as in denotation #5 collectivism.

``The right of the people to be secure in their persons...''

What does this mean if people means collective distinct from its individuals? No, it means people, you and me, we have the right to be secure in our persons. At least in theory. How do modern drug tests violate our right to be secure in our person? How do no-knock warrants violate our right to be secure in our houses? What about the so-called Patriot Act, does it violate our right to be secure in our papers and effects? In my opinion, all these examples are violations of our individual rights under the 4th amendment.

However, if secutity is interpreted as a collective right, a right to security of the group as distinct from the members, does this not change the meaning significantly? Of course it does. Let's say the collective not the individual has the right to be secure. What does this mean? Plainly, it means the group has the right to search and seize the individual with impunity, because the individual simply has no rights under the 4th amendment. The group may issue warrants supported by no oath, describing nothing, to investigate any thing the group decides as dangerous for any reason. Under this interpretation the group has rights over the individual, and the individual has no rights over the group. The group may investigate individuals with no rules governing conduct of officers of the law.

I believe this interpretation leads to tyranny. This is why I oppose the so-called Patriot Act. It flies in face of the 4th amendment, with its secret searches and seizures ordered by sealed orders. However, if rights are collective, the group has the right to do things the Patriot Act says they do, because the group has the right to be secure and can investigate individuals however it wants.

[Romulus]

29. careful

you're going to get called a "Confederate swastika-waving, lying right-wing neurotic that shills for the gun industry" :eyes: