Talk:Second Amendment to the United States Constitution/Archive 1

message: The comma is there in the constitution - removing it removes much of the ambiguity that resides in the amendment, and changes the meaning.  Please make sure the punctuation matches what's really in the constitution.
It might be interesting to provide links from (or to) the second amendment and the Gun Control issue.
----
I restored the version with the commas exactly as they appear in the manuscript at the national archives.  Yes, the US GPO actually reprints it with more modernized punctuation, but since there are so many pedantic asses out there who like to prattle on about what a comma here or there means, it's important that we be historically accurate even if our own government printing office isn't.  --LDC
----
The External Link is, in my opinion, misleadingly described.  The link is to a polemic which does include some quotes, in the main only tangentially relevant, from founding fathers.  
I would simply delete the link but, recognizing this is a hot area, thought I would ask first.
----
I moved the bit about the punctuation to the bottom.  To my knowledge, no reputable scholars consider this to be an important issue at all (but correct me with cites if I'm wrong) and I think we looked sort of silly for putting it right up front.  I believe that arguing about the punctuation is in the realm of crackpot legal theory, not something that the courts or anyone else serious really cares about.
At the present time, the article is a touch misleading on the issue of 14th Amendment incorporation.  The Supreme Court case with the language that suggests that the Amendment is only a bar to Federal action was decided before most modern incorporation jurisprudence.  Since that time, the Court has decided that the 14th Amendment does mean that most of the rest of the Bill of Rights applies to states, and it's difficult to sustain the argument that it's still "good law".  I am not sure how to fix it, though.  Katahon 22:42, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punctuation 

message: Are there any references to the legal theory by which some Amendments are, via the Fourteenth Amendment, presumed to restrain States as well as the Federal government while others are presumed to restrain the Federal government alone?  The Second Amendment appears to be unique in that States are allowed to "infringe" in ways that the Federal government is not.  What's the legal theory (not ruling) that leads to this distinction for the Second Amendment? Jim Bowery 01:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fourteenth Amendment 

message: Whoever thinks there is a POV issue here, please point out the details so the article can reach a correct balance. If nobody wants to point anything out, it does not deserve the neutrality tag at the top. Wodan 02:54, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
* It's been a week and not a word from anybody about the neutrality dispute, so I'm going to take it off. If somebody has a neutrality issue, please post the exact text you have a problem with here in order to discuss it. Wodan 13:51, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
: I've been busy. I see a whole ton of pro-gun things have been entirely stripped while the typical anti-gun excuse making remains. Mlorrey 02:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the neutrality dispute?

message: In fact the individual rights view is a modern development. Virtually all of the quotes in this section talk about arms in the context of the militia. Individual rights scholarship only takes off after Levinson's 1989  Yale Law Journal Article.
:Since the Militia is composed of individuals, this statement is silly. NO rights in the United States belong to groups.  ALL rights are individual rights.  The sovereignty of the United States is derived from the individual sovereignty of each United States citizen.  The ONLY reason that the Second Amendment even exists is that power to organize the Militia was granted to the Federal government in Article I, Section 8 of the constitution.
:"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;"
:Adding the Second Amendment was a way to make it clear that the Federal government's power does not extend to disarming individuals which would disarm the Militia.
:The Second Amendment cannot be an affirmation that States have a right to a militia since States do not have power to organize a militia since that has already been granted to the Federal government in Article I, Section 8.
:As noted, US vs. Cruikshank made it clear that the Bill of Rights only applied to Federal powers and not State powers.  This changed, however, with the 14th  Amendment.  Section 1 states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"  Jimberg98 15:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding Fathers quoted by both sides 

message: Jack Rakove, perhaps the leading constitutional historian writing about originalism, argues that the changes made the militia focus more clear and were not simply stylistic changes. Taking out the phrase "composed of the body of the people" gave Congress the ability to create a select militia if it deemed this necessary. Congress came very close to rejecting the universal militia model when it came to a vote after the adoption of the Second Amendment Removing the phrase "common defense" assuaged the concerns of those who feared the loss of state control. The evidence that individual rights was central to this debate is very flimsy. Why would they have worried about this given the common law right of self defense was not an issue in the Founding era?
:My answer to your question is in the section "15 Founding Fathers quoted by both sides".  Why is this titled "Most Constitutional Scholars do not agree" and you only mention one? Jimberg98 17:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Constitutional Scholars do not agree 

message: Just wanted to put this sucker forward, since it may effect the terms of this entry.  The version that came through the Seneate says that :
::SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
::(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
::(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
::(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
I know Congress doesn't have the power to state how the judiciary should see things, but this might be important as a side-note at least.65.31.59.176 20:33, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

message: I removed the version said to be from 28 July because the source cited is inaccurate. Source given was AoC pp. 778, which can be found here and identifies itself as for 17 August. Removed:
:"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
The correct AoC page for 28 July is here and has no record of this text version. Does anyone have a source for the 28 July version of the text? Jamesday 05:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[28 July]] version

message: i've added some info regarding miller and the disposition of the court pursuant to his failure to appear, as it has a substantive effect on the interpretation of the ruling. hope that's okay ('be bold'). Anastrophe 05:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it known when and how Miller died?  Some sources say only that he had "disappeared" during the government's appeal.  --Tamfang 22:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: from the citation i included with my edits noted above: " In fact, he died before the decision was rendered. His body was discovered in April of 1939, with multiple .38 caliber bullet wounds. His own .45 pistol lay by his side with four rounds expended. Perhaps he had a legitimate need for that shotgun after all. " Anastrophe 23:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, thanks.  —Tamfang 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: added info re miller