A purely collective right of the people to keep and bear arms makes no more sense than

[hansberrym]

a purely collective right of the people to change light bulbs.

Of course one might argue that a right to change light bulbs would further a collective right or purpose of the people in general to have lighting, but it would be nonsensical to claim that a right to change light bulbs is exclusively Collective -as it is individuals who actually do “change light bulbs”, and the specific right stated is “to change light bulbs”, not merely a general right or purpose such as “to have lighting”.

And so it goes regarding the exclusively Collective Rights theory of the Second Amendment. At best it is nonsense, at worst it is deliberate deception. The Collective Rights theory denies any individual right to keep and bear arms despite the fact that it is individual persons who are intended to both “keep and bear arms”. This deception is carried out by employing a sleight of hand in which a generalized notion compatible with a collective right (such as “the right of the people to maintain effective state militias” in Silveira, or similar verbiage in other Collective Rights decisions) is substituted for the actual text of the Second Amendment (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”).


From Silveira:
"The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the “collective rights” model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons."{/i]


There is not a shred of intellectual integrity behind that rephrasing of the text of the Second Amendment. The Collective Rights advocates can not produce a single usage from the founding era that would support their claim that the term “bear arms” actually means “maintain effective state militias”, while at the same time they must overlook many examples of “bear arms” relating to an individual person’s actions which come directly from the drafting of the Bill of Rights, the earliest court cases concerning the right to bear arms in state constitutions, a long string of Supreme Court decisions in which the right to bear arms is mentioned, as well as the last Supreme Court decision (US v. Miller) to rule on the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.

[RC]

1. So why are militias even mentioned in relation to bearing arms?

I believe Silveira's point is correct.

[hansberrym]

5. You believe that "bear arms" means "to maintain effective state militias" ?

Based on what?

[RC]

6. The Second amendment to the Constitution

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.

[hansberrym]

8. Non-responsive.

[hansberrym]

10. But what does "bear arms" mean ?

Another question is how did the Supreme Court use the term "bear arms"?

From US V. Miller:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."


and:

"And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time"


The Supreme Court interpreted "Bear arms" to mean the use of arms or carrying of arms -not "maintain effective state militias" as the Silveira court non-sensically urges.


Try replacing the Supreme COurt's use of "Bear arms" with "maintain effective state militias" and you will see just how silly the notion is.

[hansberrym]

19. I'll do it for you....

Try replacing the Supreme COurt's use of "Bear arms" with "maintain effective state militias" and you will see just how silly the notion is.


Miller Supreme Court ruling with Silveira definition of "bearing arms" replacing Miller court's use of that term:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE STATE MILTIAS such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158."


and:

And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear MAINTAIN(ING)EFFECTIVE STATE MILITIAS supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time"




A plain reading of the Miller decision shows that the Supreme Court interpreted "Bear arms" to mean the use of arms or carrying of arms -not "maintain effective state militias" as the Silveira court non-sensically urges.


The right protected is a right to perform certain actions that were to be carries out by individuals, therefor it makes no sense to claim that the right is exclusively collective.

[JackRiddler]

23. I think it's clear this is supposed to be an individual right...

Clearly it's a confusing construction and I think there are two possible readings:

Notwithstanding the fact that a well regulated militia needs also to be maintained, any old bozo can still keep their own guns. (i.e., the establishment of a militia will not mean that you can't keep your own guns).

That's what I think. The other possibility:

Since we need a militia, it's okay for people to keep arms around.

Either way, the last two clauses clearly say: you have a right to keep arms, it shall not be infringed.

You don't have to like it (I don't in particular) to understand it creates a right to individual gun ownership.

Those who wish to undermine the 2nd amendment need to understand that they encourage those who wish to undermine the rest of the bill of rights. You want to change it? Try passing an amendment, not parsing it to mean something other than it does.

[Warpy]

2. Personally, I'd find the second clause of the Second Amendment

fulfilled if gun ownership were predicated on the completion of a class in use, maintenance, and safety. Completion of such a class would provide the person with a license to present when buying ammo for one's gun(s) of choice.

That's as well regulated as it needs to be for an armed citizen militia that can be assembled at a moment's notice in time of attack, which was the framers' probable intent. It would cut down on the misfires and crossfire, in any case.

[Disturbed]

3. Can these Militias own Stinger Missiles?

The 2nd Amendment is seriously ambiguous.

[hansberrym]

13. Can I print US Dollars?

The First Amendment is seriously ambiguous. :-)

[Warpy]

17. Of course

the problem comes in if you try to spend them.

There's a whole body of law that covers that part.

[Warpy]

16. Yeah, they didn't anticipate tanks, jet fighters, and nukes

However, it was ambiguous enough to cover cannonry, the current state of the art WMD, something needed on most vessels to repel pirates.

There has to be some commonsense interpretation of where the line is. I should think ordinary citizens should be content with small arms while the big stuff is reserved for the people who have had the training to use it, maintain it, and manage it safely: the NG and the military.

[hansberrym]

18. Can the California State Militia own H-bombs? It cuts both ways. n/t

[Brother_1969]

4. The 2nd amendment is an anachronism

and should be repealed. Until then, all private gun ownership should be banned.

Until we get serious about banning gun ownership, we will continue to see innocent people massacred.

This is just common sense.

The gun nuts need to find another hobby and stop obstructing progressive gun laws.

[hansberrym]

7. Good luck with that. :-) Why do you say you support progressive

gun laws, and at same time propose that gun ownership be banned?

Does "progressive gun laws" = "ban gun ownership" ?

[Brother_1969]

11. Progressive gun laws would follow progressive theory

Many of us here view ourselves as progressives, i.e. those who view social and political process as an evolutionary one, not rooted in the past.

A more complete examination of progressivism can be found here:

http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/weinstei/jweinstein%20-%20meaning%20of%20the%20term%20progressive.pdf

[hansberrym]

12. I don't see anything in that about banning guns -why do you say banning guns is progressive? n/t

[ThomWV]

14. Maybe imposing extraconstitutional restrictions on freedom is the new Progressive

But not Abortion. God help you if you suggest that abortion is not a right.

[dysfunctional press]

15. i'm solidly a progressive- but i have no problem with gun ownership.

i used to think that we needed a gun ban, but as i matured, i realized that such a thing would be totally unworkable in this country, and that we just need to learn to live with and accept the fact that they are here to stay.

progressive thought and effort is better used on issues where serious change is actually possible.

[ThomWV]

9. You are absolutely correct. As to the inclusion of mention of militias ...

You have bothered to look at the history. That is good. I have too. I believe the inclusion of wording that respected the continuation of the already existing militias is explained by their primary use. The slave states used the militias to control the slave populations of their states. Were the militias to be baned the southern states were much afraid of uprisings by the Negroes, as was happening in the Caribbean at that time with alarming frequency. At least I have read accounts that give that explanation.

Beyond that it is clear to anyone who bothers to read the history that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right and I am certain that the Court will agree with it decides the matter this coming spring.

[baldguy]

20. The Founders weren't stupid.

If they had meant it to be a purely individual right, they would have simply said "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," and nothing else.

They didn't do that. They didn't do that for a reason.

[hansberrym]

21. They were not stupid. If they intended an exclusively collective right

they would not have used terms that applied to individuals such as to "keep and bear arms". They would have used a term such as "maintain effective state militias" which would fit such an exclusively collective intent, but they did not.


The COllective Rights advocates claim exclusivity -but the text does not support that claim, nor does the useage of the term "bear arms" by the Supreme Court in Miller.


The Collective Rights claim is based nothing more than a sleight of hand.

[slackmaster]

22. No, they felt it was an individual right that deserved special protection

In order to preserve the ability of states to maintain their militias. It's that simple.

In the 18th century in America nobody would have seriously suggested that individuals didn't have the right to be armed. That would have seemed ridiculous at the time.