young demCA: My interpretation: "Since a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State, it is of utmost importance that the right of the People to keep and bear arms is not infringed by the federal government - and by extension, state and local governments."
Is this a logical interpretation of the Second Amendment?
That's essentially been the broad definition of 2ndA, a rose by any other name etc; you only recite the minority individual interpretation embraced circa early 1800's generally by new americans wanting a right to own guns without having to serve in militia, aka scofflaws.
The opposing narrow def is militia centric or strictly militia, which conveyed any right as being incumbent upon belonging to a militia, as imposed by law in the militia act of 1792, with an auxiliary ability to personally own a firearm. Since a white male 18-45 was the state militia, he therefore had a right to keep & bear arms therefor. It was NOT since a white male was a white male he had a right to kba. Today there is no citizens militia as envisioned in the 1791 2ndA.
young dem: I base this on the historical and social context of Colonial, Revolutionary, and post-Revolutionary America.
No you don't - you base it upon the gun lobby's twisting about the intent & precedent of the 2ndA, when they began subverting 2ndA in the 1970's. The only history you employ is revisionist history.
As far as post - revolutionary america goes, as many opinions about militia/centric interpretations are had, as that of individual rkba, since the schism had begun in early 1800's; but most i-rkba interpretations had nowt to do with original intent.
young dem: I base this on the historical and social context of Colonial, Revolutionary, and post-Revolutionary America.
Historical & social context, like these?:
Virginia: (June 12, 1776) That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defense (1780)
DELAWARE (Sep 11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
MARYLAND Nov11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
NORTH CAROLINA Dec18, 1776) that the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing arm..
MASSACHUSETTS Oct25, 1780) The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE June 2, 1784) A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
NEW YORK CONVENTION July 7,1788) That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.
RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION May 29, 1790) That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
1939 Supreme Court Miller decision: The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 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.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174
Dept of Justice brief to the 1939 Supreme Court above, written 1938: doj brief, 1938: In the only other case in which the provisions of the National Firearm Act have been assailed as being in violation of the Second Amendment (United States v. Adams {1935}, the contention was summarily rejected as follows: The second amendment to the Constitution, providing, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," has no application to this act. The Constitution does not grant the privilege to racketeers and desperadoes to carry weapons of the character dealt with in the act. It refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights.
= new reply since forum marked as read
