Monon Trail rant

[Hotdoger]

If it were only occasionally that Illinois had a corrupt and socialist ruling class, I would tend to agree with you. Unfortunately, Illinois has been a cesspool of socialism and corruption for longer than I have been alive. When I was in high school, my high school teacher made jokes about how corrupt Illinois government was, and how it seemed that communism started eating our country from the middle out.

+1

Their blaming the states woes on Chicago is disingenous. The leftists control Champaign/Urbana and Carbondale, east St louis, Peoria and on and on. Welfare farmers ,Section 8ers and WIC and EIBers and Union thugs are plentiful down state , mis state and east to west.
The whole state has truned into midwest California with a lot of NJ thrown in.

 

[SirRealism]

I don't believe it had different meanings, but read the Heller decision. There are two clauses in that amendment. A prefactory clause and an operative clause. The prefactory clause (militia) is the reason for the operative (shall not be infringed.

Also pay attention to the phrase the right of the people, notice it says the right of the people, not the right of the militia. Do you believe that, as used in the 2nd Amendment, it has different meanings than elsewhere in the Constitution?

That sounds a bit familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Also pay attention to the phrase the right of the people, notice it says the right of the people, not the right of the militia. Do you believe that, as used in the 2nd Amendment, it has different meanings than elsewhere in the Constitution?

Are you aware of the TWO militias recognized by the USA? The "organized" militia being the national guard, and the "un-organized" militia, being nearly everyone else of fighting age.The U.S. Militia - U.S. Government Info/Resources

 

[Sgood]

I'm obviously a huge advocate of training.

Maybe I missed where you posted it, but will you tell me what firearms training you've taken? PM me if you don't want to post it publicly.

Range Safety
Pistol Shooting Course
Personal Protection In The Home Course
Personal Protection Outside The Home Course

All NRA courses taught in Ohio along with hunters ed taught in Indiana.
Plus 30 years of hunting and Being around guns since I was old enough to pull a trigger.

 

[Sgood]

Just to bury this argument, and end the thread jack once and for all.

600 accidents a year with firearms.
10.2 MILLION accidents per year with automobiles.

Everyone has to have pass the test to get their license to drive. Safety and training courses do not eliminate accidents and the measly number of firearm accidents every year isn't even worth noting on a large level, when looking at the big picture of accidents/deaths every year.

Your argument, sir/madam, is officially dead and buried.

Comparing accidents to deaths...........yes you are right , it's officially buried

 

[Kutnupe14]

A pretty large leap? LOL. So, let me get this straight...you believe that the 2nd Amendment means..."The government has the right to regulate the sale, barrel length, caliber, etc., of firearms, but cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."?

I never implied that.

Maybe I'm wacky, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I'm pretty sure our founders were smarter than that, considering the rest of the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, as the Bill of Rights is a restriction on Federal Power, it makes even less sense to assume that any part of the Bill of Rights could be used to deny rights to the American people (through laws "regulating" or restricting the right to keep and bear any arm of choice), which is what you're getting at. They even included an Amendment to address exactly that.

Ok, let's look at the text of the second amendment, and deconstruct it:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We disagree on what well regulated means. However, let's look specifically at the Militia part. The fact that you have the right to bear arms, makes you Militia. Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution allows Congress to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.

Now let's look at that for a moment (and I'll tread lightly here). Most think that the right to bear arms is a strong, individual, protection against the Federal Govt tyranny. Today, I believe that is certainly how it is interpreted, However, how does one take up arms against the very govt that is meant to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it? Seems like a "catch 22" ...unless, the power is extended to the respective states.

Now if you know you history, the individual states would not accept the second amendment unless well regulated was placed in the text. The also required that (further from 1:8) ...and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively.

To a southerner, such as myself, original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the individual states to protect themselves from the Federal govt, and thus the Feds could not infringe on the States' right to "bear arms." Given that the South believed that Federal Power took a backseat to State policy, and the fact that the Constitution is a restriction on Federal power (as you have already pointed out), it is completely plausible that a State could make whatever gun laws it wanted.

The battle over States rights ended at Gettysburg, which ended any debate that now Federal law reigned supreme. It was at this time (Reconstruction) that we had our first disagreements over the meaning of the Second Amendment, and up until the mid 20th century, gun ownership had always been viewed as a collective right. This idea was solidified during Reconstruction due to Southerns not wanting the recently freed slaves owning arms. It became viewed as an individual right during the Civil Rights era. And here we are today.

I don't believe it had different meanings, but read the Heller decision. There are two clauses in that amendment. A prefactory clause and an operative clause. The prefactory clause (militia) is the reason for the operative (shall not be infringed.

Also pay attention to the phrase the right of the people, notice it says the right of the people, not the right of the militia. Do you believe that, as used in the 2nd Amendment, it has different meanings than elsewhere in the Constitution?

I understand what Heller is stating, no arguments there. Gun ownership has been declared an individual right. I also understand how you cite "right of the people." That still does not prohibit gun control regulation, at least as far as the states are concerned. The Bill of Rights applies to the States as well as the people, and in practice the state's authority supercedes the individual. For example, the 10th Amendment also cites "the people."
The text:
reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.

Now when comparing that to the 2nd Amendment, clearly the states have enacted laws that of which it's citizens are subject to. If not, anything not expressively forbidden by the Constitution should be of free reign to both the states and it's populace.

That's my opinion of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. History, IMO, had changed it quite a bit.

FYI, I like it being an individual right, I'm just wanting people to look objectively at the position I have presented.

 

[thompal]

Still trying to figure out which side you're supporting...

I forgot to use the Purple of Sarcasm.

Just a hint: if it involves government putting limitations on our rights, creating more regulations to govern our behavior, putting conditions on the exercise of our rights. i am firmly against it. There is NO WAY I would support a requirement that we take government-regulated training before we are allowed to own a firearm!! Anyone who thinks that is a good idea might at well pay their HCI dues, because they've already got the dogma down.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

FYI, I like it being an individual right, I'm just wanting people to look objectively at the position I have presented.

Most of us here are well aware of your somewhat incorrect revisionist history. The fact remains however that NO state would get on board with the COTUS until it contained a BOR pertaining to THE PEOPLE. The COTUS is a contract between the Fed Gov and the individual "sovereign" states and does NOT apply to you and me. The ONLY part that applies directly to us, the people, is the BOR.

 

[Gowest1995]

You're right, it did make me hate Illinois just a little bit more.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

You're right, it did make me hate Illinois just a little bit more.

The vomit thing? Yeah -_-

 

[Compatriot G]

I notice there has been discussion about the term "well regulated". Some of the sources I have read, state that "well regulated" is an 18th Century military term. It means "well drilled" or well trained". I suspect this is probably the meaning the Founders intended.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

......and we won't even mention the use of punctuation and how it differed then from how we use it today.......and the fact that we actually have the 2a punctuated as many different ways as we have sources to read it......

 

[bstewrat3]

Getting back to the origin of this rant, I am glad I was never aware that it was illegal to carry on the Monon. I have been riding on it 3-4 times per week since it opened to 10th Street and everytime I have carried openly while wearing my lycra bike clothes. I have never been stopped or confronted by anyone for carrying. I guess I better get a couple more rides in before everyone is doing it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Most of us here are well aware of your somewhat incorrect revisionist history. The fact remains however that NO state would get on board with the COTUS until it contained a BOR pertaining to THE PEOPLE. The COTUS is a contract between the Fed Gov and the individual "sovereign" states and does NOT apply to you and me. The ONLY part that applies directly to us, the people, is the BOR.

Incorrect where? You can only interpret it 1 of 2 ways to. If the Bill of Rights solely applies to Individuals (ie 10th Amendment as well), and restricted only Federal power, then you have to accept that the individual states had free reign, as originally intended, to pass legislation that ran contrary the the Federal Constitution... at least until Incorporation (1890), which as I have already stated, came to pass directly as a result of the Civil War.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Are you aware of the TWO militias recognized by the USA? The "organized" militia being the national guard, and the "un-organized" militia, being nearly everyone else of fighting age.The U.S. Militia - U.S. Government Info/Resources

Yes I am aware of that fact, are you aware of the fact, that at the time the 2nd was penned that there was only one militia? The unorganized militia in today's terms. Well unorganized until called up for service. There was no such thing as the National Guard until the militia act of 1903.

It was at this time (Reconstruction) that we had our first disagreements over the meaning of the Second Amendment, and up until the mid 20th century, gun ownership had always been viewed as a collective right. This idea was solidified during Reconstruction due to Southerns not wanting the recently freed slaves owning arms. It became viewed as an individual right during the Civil Rights era. And here we are today.

I understand what Heller is stating, no arguments there. Gun ownership has been declared an individual right. I also understand how you cite "right of the people." That still does not prohibit gun control regulation, at least as far as the states are concerned. The Bill of Rights applies to the States as well as the people, and in practice the state's authority supercedes the individual. For example, the 10th Amendment also cites "the people."
The text:
reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.

Now when comparing that to the 2nd Amendment, clearly the states have enacted laws that of which it's citizens are subject to. If not, anything not expressively forbidden by the Constitution should be of free reign to both the states and it's populace.

The second was declared by SCOTUS in the late 1800s to be an individual right, albeit one that could be infringed upon by the states. From Cruikshank "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."

The Heller decision reinforced that it is an individual right, and through incorporation under the 14th, should prohibit states from infringing upon the 2nd. Same as they are not supposed to curtail freedom of religion, speech, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

Most of us here are well aware of your somewhat incorrect revisionist history. The fact remains however that NO state would get on board with the COTUS until it contained a BOR pertaining to THE PEOPLE. The COTUS is a contract between the Fed Gov and the individual "sovereign" states and does NOT apply to you and me. The ONLY part that applies directly to us, the people, is the BOR.

No state would get on board until it contained a BoR? Are you sure on that? Here is a list of the states and when they ratified the Constitution, Congress introduced the first 12 Amendments in Sept 1789. You might want to check the dates of ratification.

Incorrect where? You can only interpret it 1 of 2 ways to. If the Bill of Rights solely applies to Individuals (ie 10th Amendment as well), and restricted only Federal power, then you have to accept that the individual states had free reign, as originally intended, to pass legislation that ran contrary the the Federal Constitution... at least until Incorporation (1890), which as I have already stated, came to pass directly as a result of the Civil War.

According to the Preamble to the BoR, it is to further restrictions on the
Feds. IMO the first 9 apply to the people and the 10th applies to both the people and the states. The rights of the people are not limited to just the first 9, and that the state can regulate them with the consent of the people. That is phrased a bit awkward, but I think you can follow. If not, let me know and I'll try to clean it up.

And I agree that originally it only restricted the Fed govt. Until the 14th amendment.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That is phrased a bit awkward, but I think you can follow. If not, let me know and I'll try to clean it up.

No, I'm perfectly clear. I think we are in agreement.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

No state would get on board until it contained a BoR? Are you sure on that? Here is a list of the states and when they ratified the Constitution, Congress introduced the first 12 Amendments in Sept 1789. You might want to check the dates of ratification.

Interesting, from the source you listed, Rhode Island didn't even hold a ratifying convention until May 29 1790, North Carolina didn't ratify until Nov. 21 1789........Oh, and Rhode Island even "had the nerve to propose that the First Congress recommend the adoption of a bill of rights as well as amendments to the Philadelphia Constitution". Seems like maybe the states DID hold out for a BOR since you claim it was introduced BEFORE the ratification process was complete. I know it is a mixed up timeline, but it still moves in only one direction.

There were two forces at work, one wanted a strong federal government, the other wanted sovereign states. It was actually split pretty close to even within the states whether or not to ratify and most states held out as long as they could. Rhode Island (the last hold out) was even threatened with the use of military force if they refused......moving ahead nearly 100 years, dirty abe finished the job and all but eliminated state sovereignty creating the monstrosity we now know as the USA, formerly the UNITED STATES of America.

 

[finity]

Ok, let's look at the text of the second amendment, and deconstruct it:

OK, let's. Let's also look at the text of your post & deconstruct it:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We disagree on what well regulated means.

I can't see how.

Well-regulated has to mean "very practiced, smooth running, well-oiled".

I have no idea how you can look at the phrase "well-regulated militia" & see anything having to do with individual private gun-control unless you are being willfully ignorant of the common meaning of that phrase.

Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

However, let's look specifically at the Militia part. The fact that you have the right to bear arms, makes you Militia.

No.

The RKBA predates the "militia" concept.

The RKBA is a natural Right. It is the basic human Right of self-defense.

The requirement to become a part of the "militia" (a term meaning a group of people put into service in defense of some larger community - in this case the states or the whole USA) wasn't enacted until much later. I'm sure informally that it was in place before the Magna Carta (ancient Rome/Greece/etc being the most notable examples) but I think that it was the first document that defined the requirement as we know it today - an organized body of citizens called on by the government to defend "the state".

The Founders may have connected the two in the 2A but the RKBA had a much longer history since it has been around since the dawn of man.

Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution allows Congress to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia.

Now let's look at that for a moment (and I'll tread lightly here). Most think that the right to bear arms is a strong, individual, protection against the Federal Govt tyranny.

It is.

Today, I believe that is certainly how it is interpreted, However, how does one take up arms against the very govt that is meant to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it? Seems like a "catch 22" ...unless, the power is extended to the respective states.

The power is extended to the PEOPLE, not the states.

That is another good indication that the RKBA has NOTHING to do at it's most basic meaning with any sort of "organized militia".

Let me be more specific. The "unorganized militia" does not depend on any government document for it's existence. It is a natural extension of the RKBA. As soon as people started living together in groups the "unorganized militia" was the way that those groups defended themselves from "outsiders".

Even without the 2A there would still be groups of people joining together to defend themselves from others.

Now if you know you history, the individual states would not accept the second amendment unless well regulated was placed in the text.

There were many states that remembered the recent lessons of the Revolution that the federal government could simply fail to fund or train the "militia" & therefore could exercise greater control over the states by allowing the "militia" to "wither on the vine" & become impotent against any federal forces (kind of like the current situation, hmm).

It had less to do with the fact that they accepted the basic human Right to self-defense (which they unquestionably did) as it had to do with the fact that many didn't trust a federal government over a state government.

THE HISTORY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The also required that (further from 1:8) ...and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively.

To a southerner, such as myself, original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to allow the individual states to protect themselves from the Federal govt, and thus the Feds could not infringe on the States' right to "bear arms."

You see, now, that was only part of it.

There was likely not ONE of the Founders who didn't believe in the basic Right of self-defense. It was so obvious & self-evident that there were many who didn't even think it was necessary to be put in the BoR (or even have a BoR at all) & would have preferred it NOT be put in so that there was no impression given that the only Rights were the ones listed in the BoR (hence the 10A - which was another compromise)

Given that the South believed that Federal Power took a backseat to State policy, and the fact that the Constitution is a restriction on Federal power (as you have already pointed out), it is completely plausible that a State could make whatever gun laws it wanted.

They could.

BUT there were many states (with only a couple of exceptions if I remember correctly) that also had their equivalent of the 2A in their state Constitutions.

It was at this time (Reconstruction) that we had our first disagreements over the meaning of the Second Amendment,

Only because, as you state below, the southern states wanted to deny basic human Rights to newly freed slaves.

and up until the mid 20th century, gun ownership had always been viewed as a collective right.

WRONG.

Please give any cites which supports that ridiculous assertion.

This idea was solidified during Reconstruction due to Southerns not wanting the recently freed slaves owning arms. It became viewed as an individual right during the Civil Rights era. And here we are today.

Umm...the "civil rights era" was during the late '50s & early '60's. That was at the height of the gun control era. That was when the "collective right" argument got it's largest following.

I understand what Heller is stating, no arguments there. Gun ownership has been declared an individual right.

Then I don't see why you are arguing for the "collective right" argument if the opposite has been declared settled law.

I also understand how you cite "right of the people." That still does not prohibit gun control regulation, at least as far as the states are concerned. The Bill of Rights applies to the States as well as the people, and in practice the state's authority supercedes the individual. For example, the 10th Amendment also cites "the people."
The text:
reserves to the states respectively, or to the people, any powers the Constitution did not delegate to the United States, nor prohibit the states from exercising.

I have no idea what the point you are trying to make here is.

The SCOTUS has agreed that there are some allowable laws that will fit with the individual Right theory.

The McDonald case made the 2A applicable to the states so there is no further any disagreement there either.

The states can no more enact a law that infringes on the RKBA (or freedom of speech, religion, etc) than the federal government can, no matter how much their authority "supercedes" the individual. That's the exact reason why we have a Constitution & a republican form of government.

Now when comparing that to the 2nd Amendment, clearly the states have enacted laws that of which it's citizens are subject to. If not, anything not expressively forbidden by the Constitution should be of free reign to both the states and it's populace.

Sort of.

THE PEOPLE always reserve the Right to change the laws. THE PEOPLE have ceded that authority to "the state" (federal or local). The "state" is not some mysterious entity that is magically put in charge by some ethereal "something" to pass laws to which we (those "citizens") are "subject to".

The Rights guaranteed by the Constitution (federal or state) are not in existence just because those Constitutions exist. The Constitutions exist because those Rights already existed. The basic Right of THE PEOPLE to form the government that they feel most comfortable with.

Just because the states HAVE enacted laws in direct opposition to the Natural Rights of the PEOPLE doesn't mean that those laws are Constitutional or even moral.

That would be like saying that because the federal government has passed laws infringing the 2A means that it was somehow suddenly Constitutional.

That's why I have this aversion to the whole "states rights" concept. It justifies any bad law that the states want to pass that is not specifically restricted by it's state Constitution because they are "sovereign".

NO.

PEOPLE are sovereign. If we want the federal BoR to be in effect over the states then that's the way it should be & the damn state governments should sit down, say OK & just STFU after that.

FYI, I like it being an individual right, I'm just wanting people to look objectively at the position I have presented.

I think you're wrong. Objectively, of course.

The Heller decision reinforced that it is an individual right, and through incorporation under the 14th, should prohibit states from infringing upon the 2nd. Same as they are not supposed to curtail freedom of religion, speech, assembly, unreasonable search and seizure, etc.

You're right that the Heller case finally unequivocally declared the 2A an individual Right but it was the McDonald case that incorporated it against the states.

And I agree that originally it only restricted the Fed govt. Until the 14th amendment.

Which was I think just an overlooked technicality.

Many states had their own versions bof the 2A. Some of which were stronger than the federal one.

The "states" (& by extension the PEOPLE of those states) ratified the BoR which to me meant that the PEOPLE agreed with the tenets contained therein.

I would find it highly unlikely that the same PEOPLE who just fought a revolution & were so influenced by the Enlightenment with it's focus on "Natural Rights" would water down their own Rights where state laws were concerned to the point that we have New Jersey type laws while forcing strong protections for their INDIVIDUAL Rights from the federal government.

 

[T.Lex]

Which was I think just an overlooked technicality.

Wait a second. To strict constructionalists, as you appear to be, there can be no such thing as an "overlooked techicality."

On this narrow point...

I would find it highly unlikely that the same PEOPLE who just fought a revolution & were so influenced by the Enlightenment with it's focus on "Natural Rights" would water down their own Rights where state laws were concerned to the point that we have New Jersey type laws while forcing strong protections for their INDIVIDUAL Rights from the federal government.

I believe you are incorrect.

There was no general consensus about the boundaries of the personal right to keep an bear arms. There was a consensus that it existed. Which really led to the overarching theme of the founding documents: options.

If a state, indeed, wanted to severely limit the RKBA, then I think the founding fathers would've scratched their heads and said, "Well... ok... if you REALLY want to...." The representative democracy system for the states would trump even the 2d Am. as applied to the feds.

IMHO.

 

[thompal]

Wait a second. To strict constructionalists, as you appear to be, there can be no such thing as an "overlooked techicality."

On this narrow point...


I believe you are incorrect.

There was no general consensus about the boundaries of the personal right to keep an bear arms. There was a consensus that it existed. Which really led to the overarching theme of the founding documents: options.

If a state, indeed, wanted to severely limit the RKBA, then I think the founding fathers would've scratched their heads and said, "Well... ok... if you REALLY want to...." The representative democracy system for the states would trump even the 2d Am. as applied to the feds.

IMHO.

I thought the bedrock notion was that an individual state could not be more restrictive on individual rights than was allowed by the federal constitution. It seems that those who advocate strong federal government always point to the civil war as proof that states's rights must conform to federal guidelines, but now you claim that states may pass laws which ignore the federal Bill of Rights. Which is it? An advocate of a strong federal government cannot on one hand claim that states' rights are essentially invalid in nearly every aspect, yet states are free to pass laws which restrict the 2nd Amendment, and ONLY the Second Amendment.

How many LOCAL courthouses have been forced by the federal government to remove religious posters or plaques from their property, because they supposedly violated the 1st Amendment? How many city and county LEOs have been sued for violations of someone's 4th Amendment rights? How many accused have used their 5th and 6th Amendment rights in state courts? How have federal judges imposed rules on municipalities requiring arbitrary changes to school systems to obtain "integration" through busing, when public schools, numerical parity, and school transportation are at no time mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights?

I could go on, but I would still like to know how the "living document" folks feel that states must strictly adhere to only 9 out of the 10 Amendments.