Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
US Senator Coburn (R-OK) Introduces Gun Control of His Own (not kidding!!!)
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sanford" data-source="post: 2173945" data-attributes="member: 27733"><p>Well ... who do you think is the "militia"? Hint: Check U.S. Code at 10USC 311 ... oh heck, here:</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>Militia: composition and classes</p><p></p><p>(a) 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, 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 members of the National Guard.</p><p>(b) The classes of the militia are - </p><p>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and</p><p>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>So, back to answering your question from the previous post ... yeah, I'm part of the militia. You probably are too, as are most of those on this forum and elsewhere posting on and debating this topic, pro or con.</p><p></p><p>As for "all of the case law since it was written" ... you mean like these? </p><p></p><p>In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; <strong>neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence</strong>. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and <strong>has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.</strong>"</p><p></p><p>In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right.</p><p></p><p>In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that <strong>the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"</strong> but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.</p><p></p><p>In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that <strong>the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sanford, post: 2173945, member: 27733"] Well ... who do you think is the "militia"? Hint: Check U.S. Code at 10USC 311 ... oh heck, here: --- Militia: composition and classes (a) 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, 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 members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the 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. --- So, back to answering your question from the previous post ... yeah, I'm part of the militia. You probably are too, as are most of those on this forum and elsewhere posting on and debating this topic, pro or con. As for "all of the case law since it was written" ... you mean like these? In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; [B]neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence[/B]. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and [B]has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.[/B]" In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that [B]the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[/B] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that [B]the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
US Senator Coburn (R-OK) Introduces Gun Control of His Own (not kidding!!!)
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom