The second amendment gives us the right to arm a militia against an enemy combatant...?

Question

We've declared a war on drugs... what's to prevent a group of law abiding Americans in small cities throughout the nation from "mounting and attack" on the inner-city drug dealing thugs?

so to nyxcat1999's point... all we have to do is get congress to acknowledge the "war" that has been rhetorically waged for over 1/4 of a century, and we're golden.

To Stone K's point:
The Right to bare arms was an attempt to help citizens (particularly i rural areas) protect them selves from raiders, bandits and thieves, since law enforcement at the time was mostly based on constables and had minimal coverage in far off rural lands. It also allowed for localized defense against Native American raiding parties since most military forces would not be able to respond in a timely manner.

City size 48,000 total police force 100, with special assignments, detectives, and "routine" officers, total on the street police at any given shift is about 8. This is the aforementioned "minimal coverage", the crack dealers and two-bit hoods have more control over the city than the police. In Dodge City doesn't someone need to step up, when the police are too busy being meter maids, and political lackeys?

Answer 1

The second amendment does not in any way give anyone the right to arm a militia against an enemy combatant.
It gives individuals the right to keep arms, there is no action involved there. ANd it also gives the right to be in the militia, under the orders of state appointed officers.

PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) is a case which basically said that a group of individuals who came together unofficially armed to parade were not protected by the second amendment in any way.

"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The founding fathers did not want states to have armies for a reason, to prevent internal warefare, what you are suggesting would be similar to this. YOu would be breaking the law in mounting an attack against these people.

The only real way to deal with this would be if you worked with the police on the matter. I believe that forming neighbourhood watch type schemes would be allowed. An individual is allowed to defend themself from attack, and if carry and conceal is legal then people would be able to walk around neighbourhoods armed. However attacking rather than defending would be against the law.

Answer 2

Ahhh, but the Constitution says the right to bare arms (mostly with the intent of protecting ones self, property and country), it does not say you can violate the law.

Since The Constitution does not specify HOW to apply the right to bare arms in a responsible manner, you need to turn to federal, state and local laws to determine if the way you are acting is legal.

"mounting an attack" as you phrased it, would be a definite illegal act, the Constitution could not protect you in any way at that point.

The Right to bare arms was an attempt to help citizens (particularly i rural areas) protect them selves from raiders, bandits and thieves, since law enforcement at the time was mostly based on constables and had minimal coverage in far off rural lands. It also allowed for localized defense against Native American raiding parties since most military forces would not be able to respond in a timely manner.

The 2nd amendment should NEVER be taken as Carte Blanche to take the law in to ones own hands... By doing so you are in violation of the spirit of the amendment and would be giving the anti-gun lobby perfect fodder for making more laws against law abiding gun owners.

Answer 3

Several things prevent it.

First, the 2nd Amendment protections only apply against federal gun control regulations. They were never incorporated to apply against the states, so states are free to regulate firearms as much as they wish.

Second, most federal courts consider the 2nd Amendment to grant collective rights -- the states can have armed militias, but not individuals or private citizens. The US Supreme Court has not ruled on the issue.

Third, "enemy combatant" is a legally meaningless term, except according to international treaty definitions (which are enacted as federal law when the treaty is ratified). Under those definitions, a enemy combatant must be a member of the armed forces of a nation currently engaged in hostilities with the US. There are no such countries at present.

Fourth, the "war on drugs" is a marketing phrase. It has no legal meaning.

Finally, since no exceptions apply, state laws prohibiting armed vigilantes would remain in effect, and anyone "mounting an attack" using weapons would be in criminal violation of state laws.

Answer 4

I myself am not a advocate of firearms ownership in the context of rapid fire weapons, but after reading that answer by "Endangered Species", I may have to change my mind. If people like him can have access to them, then I certainly want one to protect me and mine. The Constitution is an exercise in semantics, it is about who can make the most compelling argument and interpretation of the actual words. i.e, "The right to bear arms", I see no mention of "firearms" and at the formation of the constitution they certainly had them, so why did not the constitution writer specifically mention that fact?. The other side to that coin is that "arms" is a generic term for weaponry. The formers also made a point about "A well regulated militia" so it could be argued that the right to have arms in the community is for a civilian force to combat any infraction of the peaceful intercourse of the populace going about their lawful life, and as such the arms should be kept in an armoury for that purpose. That semantically would satisfy the right to bear arms in a well regulated militia.As is the case with most of this our Constitution and others I would imagine, it is all about how you intemperate it, and if you can vocalize your opinion loud enough to have others follow you.

Answer 5

Taking the law into our own hands is hardly ever a good idea, even though a person looks like a bad guy maybe he is not a bad guy at all. I was in a bar last year when all of a sudden about 20 of the badest looking biker dudes came in 10 men and 10 women, they where right out of a 50's move. turns out that they where all middle aged people from New Zeland who had see 100's of 50's biker moves and been planning this trip across America for ten years. they bought all the cloths and the Harley's over the Internet. So my point is just because they look like a bad guy maybe they are not!

Answer 6

The term "war on drugs" is a figurative one. congress at no time has made a formal declaration of war against any persons or countries involved in the drug trade and so therefore we are not literaly at war with drug dealers. therefore with that said, if you where to raise a malitia and move against drug dealers in the city you would actually be charged for inciting a riot, discharge of firearms in city limits, murder, attempted murder if anyone survived, and who knows what other charges they could come up with. Your afformentioned situation would in effect bypass due process and declare these poeple guilty without trial by jury of their peers, wich since you read the constitution , would be a clear violation of thier 6th amendment rights.

Answer 7

The Second Amendment guarantees each individual citizen the right to keep and bear arms. And in time of war, to organize militias. Any act of war must be declared by Congress. We just cannot go and organize militias and conduct military operations on anything we want.

I do agree in one respect that militias could be organized to defend our borders. And that would not only slow down illegal drugs into this country, but illegal aliens as well.

Answer 8

then they'd have to decide which drug kingpins to go after. The blacks, the italians, the government operatives? such a bunch of decisions for an ignorant rabble of ragtag militia.

better to stay in the home town and bowl.

Answer 9

Nothing really. Aside from the fact that they would probably be arrested and sent to prison for the rest of their lives.

Answer 10

then we would be just like Iraq. everybody walking around with guns and what not. and war on drugs is a expression used by law enforcement agencies. if you see a drug dealer, call the cops and have them kill him. they have a license to do so. you do not.