US Gov't Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law

[Bugfatty300]

Wait. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but isn't the express purpose of allowing the populance to carry weapons is to be a militia? So the well regulated part doesn't apply, despite people only being allowed to carry weapons to be the well regulated militia?

No. If that were true then the 2nd amendment would read something like: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of able bodied men aged 17 to 45 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Instead it says people.

Obviously women, crippled people, old men didn't serve in the militia so that kind of tells you that the primary idea was simply that the people (or at least white people at the time) have a right to keep and bear arms, with the bonus that we can form militias quicker because guns will be more proliferated and accessible.

 

[Ajidica]

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but Heller vs DC says that the well regulated militia is a trained militia. But the 2nd ammendment only supports people having weapons so they can be part of the well-regulated militia. If there is no registry even of weapons and who has what, how can it be considered well-regulated and trained?

 

[GoodGame]

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but Heller vs DC says that the well regulated militia is a trained militia. But the 2nd ammendment only supports people having weapons so they can be part of the well-regulated militia. If there is no registry even of weapons and who has what, how can it be considered well-regulated and trained?

Reading the Wikipedia article, it seems to be that the SC is saying that the "well regulated militia" supports the clause that individuals have a right to bear arms, but isn't the primary meaning of the overall 2nd amendment.

I'd summarize as "people have a right to defend themselves". But it's still not an exhaustive right, just as people don't have the right to say whatever they want in a crowded theatre (the crying fire in a theatre example). E.g. felons are still prohibited from bearing arms. As for why no registry? I dunno. de facto, doesn't the Fed track that through various agencies?

Spoiler :

The Court based its reasoning on the grounds:

* that the operative clause of the Second Amendment—"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"—is controlling and refers to a pre-existing right of individuals to possess and carry personal weapons for self-defense and intrinsically for defense against tyranny, based on the bare meaning of the words, the usage of "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution, and historical materials on the clause's original public meaning;
* that the prefatory clause, which announces a purpose of a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", comports with, but does not detract from, the meaning of the operative clause and refers to a well-trained citizen militia, which "comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense", as being necessary to the security of a free polity;
* that historical materials support this interpretation, including "analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions" at the time, the drafting history of the Second Amendment, and interpretation of the Second Amendment "by scholars, courts, and legislators" through the late nineteenth century;
* that none of the Supreme Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation, specifically United States v. Cruikshank (1875), Presser v. Illinois (1886), nor United States v. Miller (1939).

 

[Ajidica]

Apparently the feds don't maintain registry of who has concealed carry permit (or lack thereof) in Arizona.
Although I oppose concealed carry, I'll accept its here. Requiring no permits or anything, not even maintaining a registry, just seems like they are asking for trouble.

 

[Merkinball]

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but Heller vs DC says that the well regulated militia is a trained militia. But the 2nd ammendment only supports people having weapons so they can be part of the well-regulated militia. If there is no registry even of weapons and who has what, how can it be considered well-regulated and trained?

Oh yeah man, this is so true, because way back in the day the federal government was all about logging who did and who didn't own firearms while they were busy regulating the militia.

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good" - George Washington

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - ALEXANDER HAMILTON! YOUR FAVORITE

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... - Sam Adams

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." - George Mason

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." - Thomas Jefferson

Keep reaching for that rainbow.

 

[Ajidica]

Oh yeah man, this is so true, because way back in the day the federal government was all about logging who did and who didn't own firearms while they were busy regulating the militia.

Back in the day, our founders crappen in pits, owned slaves, and refused to give women the right to vote. I don't see you arguing for those parts to come back and I wouldn't rely on them for an example of beurecratic excellence.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Forgive me if I'm being dense, but Heller vs DC says that the well regulated militia is a trained militia. But the 2nd ammendment only supports people having weapons so they can be part of the well-regulated militia. If there is no registry even of weapons and who has what, how can it be considered well-regulated and trained?

Well I've already explained that the right to keep and bear arms is unconnected to militia service. But I'm pretty sure the National Guard/State militias already institute training and discipline and keeps track of what weapons are in the inventory and to whom they're issued. Of course those weapons are paid for by the tax payers so it's a smart idea to keep track of them. I don't see what it has to do with the soldiers actually being trained and disciplined.

Likewise I don't see the connection between civilian gun laws (such as regulating how someone carries a gun for personal self-defense) and maintaining a trained and disciplined militia.

 

[Ajidica]

Okay, I just interpreted the 2nd ammendment as letting people have guns so they can be a militia, rather than the militia being a secondary part.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The Daily Show addresses the issue of finally updating the Constitution so we will be free of the peril of anchor babies and other threats while maintaining the sacrosanct right to own firearms.

Behold the WikiProStitution.

Stewart brings up the subject of hypocrisy. How many of the people who now want to change it have typically been completely opposed in the past:

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R) Alabama:

A lot of people ... don't want to enforce the Constitution as it is written. They would like to enforce it like they would like it to have been written.

Glenn Beck:

I am so sick of people taking this Constitution... We are running it through the shredder every time somebody wants to do what they want to do. It took these guys a long time, they read a lot of books and a lot of history to put the principles together in this thing.

Jon Stewart:

They talk about the sacrosanct nature of the Constitution when they like what it says, then suddenly the say "Hey, that's not what the founders meant". They want to be able to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution they want.

Sarah Palin:

Go back to what our founders and founding documents meant. They are quite clear. That we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments.

Jon Stewart:

They make it sound like the Constitution is an amendment now to the Bible.

 

[Merkinball]

Wow, I've seen Stewart do some inane, irrelevant, gay crap in my day. But that's about as terrible as it gets.

Trying to show the Republicans, who want to use the constitutional process, to get a constitutional amendment, to show that they interpret it however they want to, and apply it to however they want, while showing a quote from Beck who's criticizing people like Pete Stark who think they can do whatever the hell they want, is superhero gayness at its finest.

 

[Holycannoli]

Wow, I've seen Stewart do some inane, irrelevant, gay crap in my day. But that's about as terrible as it gets.

Trying to show the Republicans, who want to use the constitutional process, to get a constitutional amendment, to show that they interpret it however they want to, and apply it to however they want, while showing a quote from Beck who's criticizing people like Pete Stark who think they can do whatever the hell they want, is superhero gayness at its finest.

But look at Stewart's audience, they live for that sort of stuff. They wouldn't accept anything else.

I like how Florida is now considering similar laws as Arizona It's about time the feds wake the hell up and see that these are genuine concerns of the citizens of these states and if they aren't gonna do anything because it jeopardizes their votes, the states will. Look how some people are already politicizing the issue; I think it was Reid who said something like "I can't understand how a Hispanic could be Republican?"

 

[GhostWriter16]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10530861.stm



...Going around SCOTUS for this, I see.

This will be an interesting event... Arizona claims the government doesn't enforce its job so they must do it for them, and then the feds just retaliate by saying it's not their place to actually enforce federal laws...

Or that's the simplified version I hear a lot of, anyway.

Law probably could be better, but so long as it applies to anybody who was already doing something illegal, I don't have much of a problem with it; it's not like dragging a person off the street randomly and asking for papers... criminals do not have the same rights as innocent people.

I agree we need a single, unified standard on this... now, enforce it, and you just might have a point, Mr. O.

I would get that if the Federal Government changed the rules and said that immigration was free, but it isn't and those people are not allowed to be here. Go Arizona!

I just hope they refuse to honor whatever nonsense SCOTUS throws at them.

 

[Merkinball]

But look at Stewart's audience, they live for that sort of stuff. They wouldn't accept anything else.

I like how Florida is now considering similar laws as Arizona It's about time the feds wake the hell up and see that these are genuine concerns of the citizens of these states and if they aren't gonna do anything because it jeopardizes their votes, the states will. Look how some people are already politicizing the issue; I think it was Reid who said something like "I can't understand how a Hispanic could be Republican?"

The fact that Reid would suggest that Hispanics would vote along racial lines as opposed to principles should insult Hispanics with principles to no longer vote for Democrats.

I don't understand how a Hispanic would came here legally could vote for a Democrat. (Or John McCain for that matter.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

(Or John McCain for that matter.)

Why would someone vote for John Mccain? Because really, we are only given two choices. I admire the people who will go out and vote Ron Paul on principle but since only those who love liberty vote for people like Ron Paul he won't win.

When left with a choice between Mccain and Obama, think carefully. I don't know how you can pick Obama. So, why would someone vote for Mccain? To make it more difficult for Obama. Period. I don't blame them.

Now, if you were to ask why anyone would SUPPORT Mccain you'd have a valid point.

 

[Merkinball]

Why would someone vote for John Mccain? Because really, we are only given two choices. I admire the people who will go out and vote Ron Paul on principle but since only those who love liberty vote for people like Ron Paul he won't win.

When left with a choice between Mccain and Obama, think carefully. I don't know how you can pick Obama. So, why would someone vote for Mccain? To make it more difficult for Obama. Period. I don't blame them.

Now, if you were to ask why anyone would SUPPORT Mccain you'd have a valid point.

Anybody who voted for McCain on this basis is unprincipled.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Anybody who voted for McCain on this basis is unprincipled.

You realize that I know a lot of DIE HARD right-wingers that voted for Mccain to keep Obama out of office. Which is the only reason to vote for him.

Who did you vote for?

 

[Merkinball]

You realize that I know a lot of DIE HARD right-wingers that voted for Mccain to keep Obama out of office. Which is the only reason to vote for him.

Who did you vote for?

And they have no principles.

I voted for Bob Barr, because I'd rather see Obama get elected and run roughshod over the nation than see McCain get elected and run roughshod over the nation. Oh, and I have principles.

 

[GhostWriter16]

And they have no principles.

I voted for Bob Barr, because I'd rather see Obama get elected and run roughshod over the nation than see McCain get elected and run roughshod over the nation. Oh, and I have principles.

I am curious about this actually.

I remember hoping Mccain won in '08 but after reading up a bit more on him I was horrified. He's secretly pro-choice, he hates capitalism, exc.

Still, he will run roughshod over the nation SLOWER than Obama will, that's the key.

All my ideological support went to Ron Paul in 2008. But it was Mccain or Obama (I couldn't actually vote so no I didn't vote for Mccain) and I preferred Mccain to win.

Or, are you against "Lesser of two evils" voting because if you are you can't very often ACTUALLY vote.

 

[Merkinball]

, he will run roughshod over the nation SLOWER than Obama will, that's the key.

That's debatable. I don't think you could make an argument that McCain would have done ANYTHING differently over the course of the same time period.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's debatable. I don't think you could make an argument that McCain would have done ANYTHING differently over the course of the same time period.

Would he have signed UHC for starters? Would he have let the Bush tax cuts expire?

Granted, I probably hate Mccain as much if not more than you do. Just look at my political compass! I think Mccain is abhorrent to real right-wingers.

I simply think he was the lesser of two evils and that people who voted for him for THAT REASON had a reason.

I don't know anyone who actually liked Mccain but I know a LOT of people who voted for him to block Obama.