The Intent of the 2nd Amendment: Is it really that unclear?

Sodbuster

New member
I need help. I need someone to point out to me the fallacy of my logic. You see, I believe the Second Amendment is being infringed. Like the legislators of 1999, the framers of the Constitution had an intent when passing laws. Their intent was for the people to enjoy freedom. In support of my convoluted reasoning, I submit the following:

3 Elliot, Debates at 425-26, quoting George Mason

"Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."


2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution at 509 (Kaminski and Saladino eds. 1981) quoting John Smilie

"Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army - or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed."


2 B. Schwartz, The Bill of Rights at 681, quoting Samuel Adams

"...the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."


HR Report No. 141, 73rd Congress, 1st Session, February 5, 1933

"This congress chose to do in the interests of organizing reserve military units which were not limited in deployment by the strictures of our power over the Constitutional militia, which can be called forth only to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions. The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the Constitutional militia."


In a Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, 97th Congress, 2nd Session, February, 1982, page 11

"The militia refers to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term select militia, and distinguished this from militia. Debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute and indeed were philosophically opposed to the concept of a militia. That the National Guard is not the militia referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to raise and support armies, and not its power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia."


US Code Title 10 Chapter 13 Section 311

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of Title 32 United States Code Service, under 45 years of age, who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become citizens of the United States, and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. The classes of militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the naval militia, and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the naval militia."


US Code Title 10 Chapter 13 Section 312a

"The following persons are exempt from militia duty: the vice-president; the judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several states and territories, Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone; members of the armed forces except members who are not on active duty; custom-house clerks; persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail; workmen employed in armories, arsenals and naval shipyards of the United States; pilots on navigable waters; mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States."


US Code Title 18 Section 1385

"Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution, or act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the army or the air force as a posse commitatus, or otherwise to execute the laws, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."


As a note, the US Code Service citation does not justify the Second Amendment. Rather, Title 10 Chapter 13 of the USCS exists because of the Second Amendment. Note the language used: "consists of." You don't have a choice to be in the militia or not. If you meet the criteria, you are in the militia. You may also be in your state's militia! Honorably discharged veterans are in the militia until age 65. There is one statement I have been unable to verify: the people are permitted to volunteer to join a militia. I have this information from a good source, but again, I cannot confirm. Does anyone know about volunteering for a militia?
Why the Posse Commitatus statute? If anyone attempts to use the military, it's just a slap on the wrist, and probably not even that.

We are all familiar with the quotes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. We know what their intent was. We know that rights specifically guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be usurped by the states.
Can someone point out where my logic fails me?

3 Elliot, Debates at 45, quoting Patrick Henry

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."


The Mother of All Quotes. Samuel Adams

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
 
I guess I'm "convoluted" too; I agree with you. Little by little our rights are being taken away by people who hate this country. I have no doubt that the time will come, perhaps soon, when we will have to physically fight to stop them. I do not relish this but if the country and the constitution are to survive, we may have no choice. It is my profound wish that people awaken from their slumber in time to avoid this but I'm not too hopeful.
 
OOPPS, I better be nice..........OK, the intent was indeed to permit private ownership of firearms. It's so simple a lot of people refuse to bekeive it.

[This message has been edited by Frank Haertlein (edited November 29, 1999).]
 
The interesting thing to me is that of the 60,000,000 gun owners in this country 50,000,000 or so dont give a damn and if they ever do, it will be too late.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
60 million gun owners, if we could wake up the other 50 million, we could accomplish much without so much as a threat of armed conflict! 60 million votes could do it!



------------------
David L. Blackburn
 
Dave,
You bet they could!
In fact, if 40 million would vote ONLY for the Second Amendment, we could put a complete stop to gun control.
 
check out this one too....

United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990). This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.
 
your logic isnt flawed, merely re-read the constituion itself, and the federalist papers.
i think the constitution is crystal clear
'the rights of the citizenry SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' (emphasis mine).
without getting into the political leanings of various supreme courts (judical activism or conservatism..) the consitution is simple, it is the 'lawmakers' themselves who convolute things.
for the record im an LEO, not all of us, or many of us, for the matter think that gun control works, quite the contrary for many of us who are actually on the streets..
 
When some people debate the meaning of such words as "is" and terms such as "sexual relations", it is clear that clarity is ignored when trying to support one's selfish wants and desires.

(The leader of our country... sheesh!)

Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Back
Top