Would a strict constructionist of the constitution interpret the second amendment to mean?

Question

That americans can use a gun for ANY purpose than to organize and fight in a militia? Where does it say that you can protect your property from criminals? IF you believe the SCOTUS should strictly construct what the framers of the constitution meant, would you have to turn in your guns? I asked a question about arming yourself against the government, and nobody could come up with a single precedence, yet hundreds of thousands of guns are owned.

Robert, NOWHERE does it discuss what I feel. I do that in my answers. Use your own points for your own questions, and ANSWER MINE if you are going to take the points. I swear, it is pointless in this forum. Nobody reads questions, are really takers the time to think them through. Instead, people use this as a sopbox to preach their own views, no matter how unrelated to the question it is.

Answer 1

The Supreme Court has constantly avoided the issue of whether gun ownership is a right under the Constitution. Even the U.S. v. Lopez decision (arguably the most important recent decision) argued not from the perspective of the second amendment but the interstate commerce clause. I think this is partially because a constructionist would view the second amendment in a very narrow light. The result is that a constructionist to the U.S. Constitution would have to argue from a different clause in order to make the claim that they want to make.

Answer 2

It doesn't matter what the purpose is - it says that because one of the purposes is so critical, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be abridged.

Besides, practically how's it going to work - - - - for a militia to work the citizenry has to already be armed. It's not just "well, if it ever comes to it, THEN you can go get guns" - - - - beause if people weren't forming militias until things got bad, which would in your scenario mean nobody had guns, then where, when it gets that bad, are you going to get guns?

Your construct doesn't work. In order for there to be the possibility of organizing a militia when things get to it, a prerequisite to that is an armed citizenry.

Besides how would you enforce your interpretation - you would empower the government to decide whether a person's purpose in buying and owning a gun was to defend against... the government..... So I buy a gun to defend against tyranny, a government agent comes to my door and says no, your true purpose is to hunt wabbits, so we're taking your gun.... They're not going to say OK your true purpose is to depose us or stop us from intruding on your rights, thus we'll let you keep the gun - - that makes no sense.

Answer 3

The 2A was designed by the founding fathers to prevent the federal govt taking arms away from individuals before due process and preventing the federal govt stopping individuals being in the militia.
YOu would nothave to turn your guns in, as they are protected, however if you broke the law, they could take them away. It does not say you can protect your property, though the BoR generally is considered to have a right to self defence, probably from the 9A. So if you have a gun, you can use it for self defence, though this is not protected by the 2A.

The reason to have guns is so that the militia can have guns in the event of bad government. Fortunatly this has not been too necessary in the history of the USA. But the precedent comes from the war of independence.

Answer 4

The Constitution is what is called an affirmative document. That is, unless it's forbidden, it's allowed. The Constitution doesn't 'grant' rights, it recognizes rights that would exits even without a constitution. The Bill of Rights lists ten of these rights including #9....which clearly states that the enumeration of certain rights does not disparage others retained by the 'people'. The Constitution lists three distinct entities....the federal government...the states and 'the people'. (10th Amendment) The Bill of Rights clearly uses the term 'the people' or suggests 'the people' in all of it's amendments.....that is, 'rights' are individual in nature, not collective. So, as long as an individual expresses his/her right to 'keep and bear arms' within the bounds of lawful 'time, place and manner there's no conflict with the Constitution no matter how you 'construct' it's meaning.

Answer 5

I believe that the 2nd amendment is intended to insure that citizens can own firearms, but I also believe that the 'well regulated militia' clause is intended to chill unfettered access to any firearm for any reason. Unfortunately this has never been tested at the supreme court. But I think that the court would lean to the personal liberty angle over the purpose of the firearm angle. This would not be 'strict constructionist' but would be more based on precedent concerning other civil liberties.

Answer 6

Any approach to obvious legislative intent applied to the Second Amendment has to come down in favor of it being an individual right. If one reads the entire document, every single element in the Bill of Rights speaks to the rights of each individual citizen.

The obvious legislative intent is, well, obvious. Simply put, the greatest American intellects of the time knew that the citizen is the state, and knew also that the state exists for the citizen more than the citizen exists for the state.

History shows us that those who wrote the Bill of Rights pored scrupulously over the constitutions of each of the original thirteen states. It was from these sources that the often-mentioned rights to possess arms were drawn by those who wrote the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. A great many of them made it abundantly clear that the right of the citizen to protect himself and his family, individually, was at the core of the right to keep and bear arms. The ability of that citizen to become a citizen soldier and bear those arms in defense of his state was simply one more reason why the right to keep and bear arms served the common good of a free state.

Answer 7

OK, somehow I get the idea that you question a persons right to protect him/her self from criminal or government intrusion. I chose to make my point through example but it seems to be misunderstood here in this forum. So...

The right to protect your property and family from criminals has existed since the dawn of time, weather that be by rock, bone, stick, club, or gun. Even though the constitution does not clearly spell it flat out for you, you must rely upon an understanding of where the constitution gets its origins from. One example, from Eglish common law: In the 1760s, William Blackstone sought to codify the English common law. In his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England he wrote that "every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether produced by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly is a degree of tyranny."

How should such tyranny be prevented or resisted? Through property rights, Blackstone thought, which is why he emphasized that indemnification must be awarded a non-consenting owner whose property is taken by eminent domain, and that a property owner is protected against physical invasion of his property by the laws of trespass and nuisance. Indeed, he wrote that a landowner is free to kill any stranger on his property between dusk and dawn, even an agent of the King, since it isn't reasonable to expect him to recognize the King's agents in the dark.

OK, ANY purpose is extreme. This is to give some perspective on how the framers felt:

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.

"A free people ought...to be...armed..."
George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790

"In the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free."
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)

These are just a few of the historical writings and quotations from the time, but there are hundreds from which to choose. The basic idea behind the 2nd amendment is clear. We have the right. Did you not ask a question to be answered? If not, then, your argument makes no sense.

Answer 8

if you look at original constitution convention you see that the purpose of the 2nd amendment isn't about protecting you property form criminals. its basically about arming your self against the government. Seriously. The thinking was that the government would be less likely to impose an unjust law if the citizens could fight back.
so i quess the answer to your questin is basicaly no

Answer 9

"Well-regulated" to them didn't mean "government operated" (this definition of regulated would come in later). It was a synonym for "highly-functional" or "effective."

"Militia" to me, also means "The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or state, available to be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce the law, or to respond to a disaster. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

It also has other meanings in regard to government and non-government organizations, but with the strict limits placed on government authority, I do honestly believe this was meant as a right and responsibility of the people. When something bad happens, you are better off if your neighbor is equipped to help. Or, you could sit around waiting for FEMA.

So, in order to have a population that can effectively act to respond to disaster or invasion, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Answer 10

Illegals have not got any rights interior the U. S.. 4th modification in user-friendly terms applies to US electorate. Checking immigration status isn't any diverse from checking for the different arrest warrants. all of us teach identity to police officers, do all of us supply up because of the fact it is an infringement of our rights? We the folk of the USA, with the intention to variety an more advantageous Union, set up Justice, insure significant different and infants Tranquility, furnish for the person-friendly defence, sell the final Welfare, and look after the advantages of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and set up this shape for the USA.