The words "to bear arms" is a military term - Page 2
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 36

Thread: The words "to bear arms" is a military term

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by fuhr52 View Post
    It is a shame law makers find different meanings about our Constitution and Bill of Rights. There in lays the the problem. Most law makers are lawyers and lawyers can't take anything at it's word. They have to look for what isn't stated not what is stated. Then strart to twist things to fit there agenda.
    Bingo

  2.   
  3. #12

    A zoological term

    No one in their right might would argue that this is anything but a zoological term.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BpzDEJyxlj..._Bear_Arms.jpg

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Yet we have another ruling that show only military grade weapoons are protected by the second amendment.


    Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
    LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 445 U. S. 55 :: Volume 445 :: 1980 :: US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

  5. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    washington state
    Posts
    817
    To err is human, to really foul things up requires a liberal lawyer.

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,668
    Quote Originally Posted by santa View Post
    To err is human, to really foul things up requires a liberal lawyer.
    You almost got it correct. It should read "liberal gov't lawyer".

  7. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chandler
    Posts
    221
    I'm a bit confused why so much of this debate is centered around United States v Miller, military or military style weapons, and militias. This should have been settled by the much more recent case of DC v Heller, 554 U.S. 570. If you read the opinions and the pro and con amicus curiae briefs you'll see that US V Miller was thoroughly visited during the proceedings and it's clear that the right to keep and bear arms is not restricted to military weapons or anything else that may be used by the military or militia. I personally think that Scalia's opinion gave the states too much latitude for regulation (as made clear in the proceedings of McDonald V City of Chicago). Each state shouldn't have to make a 10th Amendments case vis-a-vis the Second Amendment after Heller. Of course Chicago and for that matter all of Illinois seem to consider themselves exempt from a lot of the constitution.
    MOLON LABE

  8. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by gvaldeg1 View Post
    I'm a bit confused why so much of this debate is centered around United States v Miller, military or military style weapons, and militias. This should have been settled by the much more recent case of DC v Heller, 554 U.S. 570. If you read the opinions and the pro and con amicus curiae briefs you'll see that US V Miller was thoroughly visited during the proceedings and it's clear that the right to keep and bear arms is not restricted to military weapons or anything else that may be used by the military or militia. I personally think that Scalia's opinion gave the states too much latitude for regulation (as made clear in the proceedings of McDonald V City of Chicago). Each state shouldn't have to make a 10th Amendments case vis-a-vis the Second Amendment after Heller. Of course Chicago and for that matter all of Illinois seem to consider themselves exempt from a lot of the constitution.
    Do you somehow think DC vs. Heller was a victory for the second amendment and the citizens of America? A brief summary of that trash ruling shows you do not have any rights to have a firearm outside your home.
    In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court considered the issue of whether a
    “District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”

    In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Scalia, the Court held that the ban on handguns
    violated the Second Amendment.3 The Court based its argument on a thorough textual and historical analysis of the Amendment and carefully avoided more general public policy arguments. The Court held that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms for lawful purposes, such as self-defense in one’s home, but the government may reasonably regulate the exercise of that right. The Court stated that “[t]he very enumeration of the [right to bear arms] takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.”4 The
    ACLJ agrees with the Court’s analysis and its conclusion that “it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”5
    http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/ACLJ_S...ler_063008.pdf

    The very weapons that have been banned in the past or will be on the next weapons ban list or have been restricted are the very weapons that three court rulings specificly said was protected by the second amendment., Militia style weapons. You can agrue over trash guns, yes thats right trash guns all you want. I want my rights back my right to own a M-60 WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTIONS

    Lewis v. United States(1980). , Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)
    Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980): Commentary

  9. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Posts
    1,088
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackieChan View Post
    No one in their right might would argue that this is anything but a zoological term.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BpzDEJyxlj..._Bear_Arms.jpg
    To be truthful it's more like arms covered to look like bear arms. which no one should argue that your post has anything to do with the second amendment.

  10. #19
    The recent supreme court rulings seem to be leaving us with a well regulated second amendment instead of a well regulated militia!

    I think I mentioned this in a thread some time ago, but there's a chapter in Glenn Beck's book "Arguing with Idiots," that goes into good detail on the second amendment, including the meaning of words and prose used in the 18th century.

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by handgonnetoter View Post
    Listen, these anti-gun people are going to try to tear apart the 2nd Amendment a thousand different ways. To me I see one thing. THE PEOPLE! We are those people, and we have the right to keep and bear arms.
    What the anti-gun establishment doesn't understand is that the entire purpose of the second amendment was to ensure a tyrannical government could never take away our freedoms. All freedom exists at the end of a gun.

    Remember the quote, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast