Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+

“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.”

Recognize it? Simple, huh? Nothing about what weapons are allowed or banned, nothing about magazine capacity, nothing about open carry, etc.

The framers of the Constitution, because they couldn’t afford a standing army, set up a people’s army, a militia, by creating a sort of “draft” without spending any money.

Now we have much military available, so the militia is not needed.

Even if the amendment disappeared, nothing would change regarding gun owners’ rights. Gun rights and controls are determined by federal, state, count, and city legislatures, not a constitutional amendment.

Just like everyone has the right to own a car – but its use is controlled by legislative regulations.

So all the bluster from the NRA about the Second Amendment is meaningless. People read in things that aren’t there when it is all about the militia and nothing else.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+
By commenting, you agree to our terms and conditions.
  • Brian Baker

    Using that “logic” the First Amendment rights of Free Speech and Press don’t cover modern media, either. Only hand-operated printing presses. Not the internet, nor TV, movies, radio, mass-produced books and newspapers, none of it.

    Incidentally, for the uninformed — such as the author of this pathetic letter — US Code § 311 defines the militia as, essentially, all law-abiding citizens, or legal residents who have applied for citizenship. Per that section of federal law:

    “(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… sorry, Allen, you don’t know what you’re blathering about.

    • tech

      Haha! We were composing our responses simultaneously, Brian. 😀

      • Brian Baker

        You’re right, tech!

        That really IS funny.

    • lrglaw

      Perfect and on target as usual Brian Baker. Yeah, I really want Chicago or SF or LA telling me when or IF I can own a handgun, long gun or any other Federally legal firearm. The Author is the typical California Liberal Gun Control “Nut.”

      We don’t let cities and states and counties infringe upon other fundamental individual rights like free speech or freedom of religion, without “strict scrutiny” do we? No, liberal Gun Control types like the author, want to act like Heller v DC did not state that the 2A created an individual and fundamental right to own a handgun for the protection of hearth and home.

      Liberal anti-gun control folks like the author, want to treat the 2A like a second class right, that any government entity can restrict without incurring the “Strict Scrutiny” constitutional test which is applied when a government entity infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, like free speech.

      If Hillary is elected President, just like the politicians in Sacramento, or the LA City Council or SF City Council they will nibble away at your 2A rights one useless, not affecting the criminal class, gun control measure at a time. First it is the magazine ban, then it is the bullet button assault weapon ban and registration law that takes effect on January 1st, 2017. Unless the Federal Courts apply the strict scrutiny test to each of these gun laws, that seek to limit and restrict (“infringe”) your ability to defend yourself and your family with a legally acquired firearm of your choosing. The government should not be in the business of telling someone they can only defend their home with a 1) a ten round limited Pistol or revolver, but not a shotgun or a Semi-Auto, center-fire rifle, capable of accepting a detachable magazine, (AKA Evil looking assault rifle”).

      But that is exactly what California, its Governor and state legislature have done with a rash of new gun laws aimed not at the type of career street criminal who viciously murdered Sgt. Steve Owen, LASD, in Lancaster, and who had a lengthy criminal record including robbing an off-duty USC Security Guard with a handgun . . . animals like this are not deterred by the gun laws coming out of Sacramento. Those laws are aimed squarely at the law abiding gun owners of California who will actually obey a law even if they do not like it or disagree with it.

      Here is the type of “gun control laws” I would support, which are not found in any state’s criminal penal code or at the Federal Level, that would have actually kept cop killers in Prison for many years for using a gun in the commission of a violent crime (like robbery) or for being a Felon in Possession of a gun, like the animal who viciously shot and executed Sgt Owen after he was already down and wounded by this vicious animal’s first bullet:

      I have never feared the law abiding citizen who is armed, I only fear the gun armed criminals and felons who are not suppose to have guns but always do. Funny how the state and federal gun laws do nothing to deter or keep guns from criminals. Like Sgt Owen’s killer.

      The gun laws only seem to work on people who actually obey the law, not people you have to fear of committing crimes!

      I will start believing in gun laws, when I see a Felon or gun armed criminal go to prison for a solid, no joke, ten years for possessing or using a gun in the commission of a violent felony- no parole for good behavior, you do all ten years IN ADDITION to the criminal penalty for the underlying crime. This means you serve the gun sentence consecutively, at the end of your sentence for the underlying violent crime (robbery, rape, murder manslaughter, assault with a firearm, etc.). It is a mandatory sentence, that cannot be pled down, or pled away in exchange for a guilty plead, or modified by a judge. The Gun charge must be filed by the DA/Prosecutor, if there is a factual basis to charge it and it can be reasonably proven in court.

      This is the type of gun laws I support, but are nowhere on the books in any state I am aware of or at the Federal level.

      Stop passing nonsense laws that strip the law abiding citizen of their 2A rights. Pass good laws carefully tailored to hit the felon and street criminal who uses a gun in the commission of a crime. That is the type of “gun control” laws I will support! U-rah!

      If Hillary still ends up losing to a very poor Republican candidate named Donald Trump it will be in part due to her call for the renewal of the odious Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, which her husband signed into law in ’94, and the FACT that if she is elected POTUS, she will nominate Supreme Court Justices and Federal Appellate Circuit Court Judges and District Court Judges who are hostile to the 2A and will seek to overturn or limit the Landmark Heller v DC Supreme Court Decision that you quoted from.

  • tech

    Your LTE is based on a false premise, Mr. Allen. The Bill of Rights were restrictions on government to protect the rights of The People (individuals), not a list of collective rights. To test your logic, try interpreting the 1st, 4th, 5th, etc. as anything other than an individual right.

    The 2nd Amendment recognizes an individual right of The People to keep and bear arms. You’re rehashing a militia argument that was invalidated by the D.C. vs. Heller SCOTUS decision.

    I encourage you to read the summary here:

    A relevant quote that rebuts your assertion:


    1. The Second Amendment 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. Pp. 2–53.

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

    (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

    By the way, the militia wasn’t eliminated by our regular military forces. I encourage you to review the definition of militia in the U.S. Civil Code here:

  • noonan

    There are a 100 million legal gun owners who own 300 million guns are probably a trillion rounds of ammunition. If we were the problem, you would know it.

    • lrglaw

      Totally true Noonan. now if you own more than a couple guns (that would be me), the Liberal Anti-gun folks have a new euphemism for you-you are a super gun owner (notice how they try to get a word-game association tie-in with “super-predator”). All my guns are under lock and key. All are be accounted for and secured, and, when sold, will be sold through through a licensed gun dealer.

    • tech

      The “problem” is our insistence on liberty and Constitutional government, noonan. The firearms ensure that our government, one that’s subject to the consent of the governed, doesn’t have a monopoly on force.