What is the point of the Second Amendment if, according to the SCOTUS, citizens have no inherent, personal or private right to bear arms outside of service in a state-approved militia? Aren't militia only needed when the state doesn't approve them?
From The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Understanding the Court's Landmark Decisions (https://ammo.com/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide):
The next major Supreme Court case about the Second Amendment came a decade after United States v. Cruikshank, and supported its conclusion that states had the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
It started in Illinois, where Herman Presser gathered and trained his fellow German-American industrial workers in military drills, maneuvers and tactics. They called themselves the Instruct and Defend Association. Presser wanted to build a militia to oppose the private security firms like Pinkerton that were often hired by employers to break strikes and intimidate workers.
After Presser and four hundred of his fellow militiamen paraded through Chicago armed with rifles, he was arrested and charged with violating the state's laws against military organizations. Presser argued that the state's law was unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment granted him the right to form and maintain his own "well regulated" militia.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment it had made in the Cruikshank case: the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and so the states were free to regulate or ban private militias and guns in any way they chose.
The Court also interpreted the Second Amendment only to guarantee a state's right to maintain a "well regulated" militia, but not an individual's right to bear arms. In other words, outside of service in a state-approved militia, citizens had no inherent, personal or private right to bear arms for the purposes of hunting or self-defense.
Well done!!! :thumbup:
Be sure and make a copy of this stick this in the library for future reference.
Quote from: ammodotcom on October 16, 2020, 06:13:35 PM
What is the point of the Second Amendment if, according to the SCOTUS, citizens have no inherent, personal or private right to bear arms outside of service in a state-approved militia? Aren't militia only needed when the state doesn't approve them?
From The Supreme Court and the Second Amendment: Understanding the Court's Landmark Decisions (https://ammo.com/articles/second-amendment-supreme-court-cases-guide):
The next major Supreme Court case about the Second Amendment came a decade after United States v. Cruikshank, and supported its conclusion that states had the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms.
It started in Illinois, where Herman Presser gathered and trained his fellow German-American industrial workers in military drills, maneuvers and tactics. They called themselves the Instruct and Defend Association. Presser wanted to build a militia to oppose the private security firms like Pinkerton that were often hired by employers to break strikes and intimidate workers.
After Presser and four hundred of his fellow militiamen paraded through Chicago armed with rifles, he was arrested and charged with violating the state's laws against military organizations. Presser argued that the state's law was unconstitutional, as the Second Amendment granted him the right to form and maintain his own "well regulated" militia.
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment it had made in the Cruikshank case: the Second Amendment did not apply to the states and so the states were free to regulate or ban private militias and guns in any way they chose.
The Court also interpreted the Second Amendment only to guarantee a state's right to maintain a "well regulated" militia, but not an individual's right to bear arms. In other words, outside of service in a state-approved militia, citizens had no inherent, personal or private right to bear arms for the purposes of hunting or self-defense.
The bill of rights restricted the power of the federal government, being a republic, states drew up their own constitutions, and some did not protect gun rights. The 14th ruled that those restrictions now applied to the states, but for some reason the 2nd did not fall under that umbrella until District of Columbia v. Heller.
https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/2nd-amendment
QuoteBut in its 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which invalidated a federal law barring nearly all civilians from possessing guns in the District of Columbia, the Supreme Court extended Second Amendment protection to individuals in federal (non-state) enclaves.
QuoteTwo years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court struck down (also in a 5-4 decision) a similar citywide handgun ban, ruling that the Second Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.
In the majority ruling in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right."
There are many "loose ends" in the laws in what can be restricted and what can not by the states. Hopefully we have a sc now that will address those. But, things are looking up. :thumbup: