maestro pistolero
New member
So what some of you folks think it means is that the 2nd admendment gives you the right to carry a concealed weapon with no government regulation.
If you mean like in Vermont or Alaska, then yes.
So what some of you folks think it means is that the 2nd admendment gives you the right to carry a concealed weapon with no government regulation.
So what about the argument "since we don't use, need, or employ a militia anymore, how does the 2nd A apply to the Joe Citizen?
since we don't use, need, or employ a militia anymore, how does the 2nd A apply to the Joe Citizen?
So what about the argument "since we don't use, need, or employ a militia anymore, how does the 2nd A apply to the Joe Citizen?
So far as "no government interference", just like the first amendment is regulated to make for reasonable safety for the people, so must be the second. In the case of The First, it might mean no shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. In the Second, it might mean restrictions on RPGs and similar weapons. On the opposite end, banning items like "handguns" or "assault rifles" is the equivalent of prohibiting free exercise of religion or shutting down newspapers that oppose government policy.
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
USAFNoDak said:The states should still be able to call forth their citizens to help protect vital areas in case of emergencies.
USAFNoDak said:The militia referenced in the Second Amendment was not about the national guard.
Hellbilly5000 said:A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
Failing that I think most states have such provisions BUT only IF called up by the proper elected authority. Until that point no militia type right exists to those who just wish to call themselves militia and want to have military arms.
Correct, but that militia became the National Guard in 1903.
The operative clause may indeed stand upon its own merit, without regard to any militia involvement.maestro pistolero said:Do you mean to say that the operative clause may stand on it's own, or that the prefatory clause is no longer valid, or both?