Perhaps New York State needs a new gun law...

[AntiFascist]

requiring anyone carrying a weapon outside of their home to register with some sort of state militia. They wouldn't necessarily need to show "proper cause," they would just need to register. The state militia, however, may be "well regulated," thus conforming to the 2nd Amendment. When and if such a law is challenged, a good attorney should be able to demonstrate that it falls within the original intent of the 2nd Amendment.

[crud]

1. I think that is brilliant...

[TheProle]

2. What Protects New Yorkers Now?

Earlier this month, New York state legislators passed a package of gun legislation to shore up protections ahead of the anticipated high court ruling. Gov. Kathy Hochul has signed the 10 bills into law, including one banning anyone under the age of 21 from buying or owning semi-automatic rifles. Learn more about that package here.

Lawmakers could add new permitting conditions now that the court has ruled, such as requiring firearm training or a mental health evaluation or disqualifying applicants with certain types of criminal convictions.

They also could pass a law specifying where people can’t carry concealed weapons — a list that could include public transit systems, school zones, bars, parks, government offices or polling places.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/what-changes-after-supreme-court-decision-in-ny-gun-case/3746436/

[AntiFascist]

4. Those are all good, but I think language is also important...

requiring a "militia" fits the language of the 2nd Amendment. Private militias, supposedly, are already banned by SC rulings, so it has to be regulated by the State.

[TheProle]

5. Understood

I should have provided more context. What I posted are legal, achievable, actionable efforts.

[EX500rider]

6. Can you point to any time in US history where that how the 2nd was defined?

IE you had to be in a militia to own firearms?

Also the Militia was defined in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311 as:


In the Dick Act of 1903, which repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

[AntiFascist]

15. The US code refers to Federal militias...

Currently there are only two levels of militia allowable, Federal and State. I know that California has a state militia, part of which is separate from the National Guard and independent of the Federal government, with the Governor as the commander-in-chief.

Private militias are banned, but if you are carrying a gun for self-defense, are you not, in essence, a militia of one? I'm suggesting that a State define a militia of individual residents for the purpose of individual self-defense, then argue that this is in fact protected under the 2nd Amendment.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

7. The militia part has no bearing on the right to own or carry

Heller divorced the first clause from the second. This most recent ruling reiterated it and basically erased it entirely. As of the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, the right to own and carry guns has absolutely no relation to militia service.

[AntiFascist]

9. The subtle distinction is between the right to own arms and the right to carry them...

beyond the boundary of one's property. If someone owns a farm then a state could define the right to bear arms within the scope of protecting one's property. Beyond that, one has to be a member of a well-regulated militia in protection of the State.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

10. No, there is no distinction anymore.

The militia clause does not matter. It can essentially be ignored now. And this decision erased the line between in the home and outside. The 2A now protects the right to carry gun for self defense outside the home.

[AntiFascist]

11. The problem is that New York is only allowing a certain class of people to carry guns outside...

their home, those who can show "proper cause" as the State defines it. If anyone is allowed to register with a certain state militia, then it removes that privileged class status. The militia could impose its own reasonable limits, such as age limits, felony-free record, etc.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

12. Drop the militia part and those limits are fine.

Forget about the militia. The 2nd Amendment is in absolutely no way linked to militia service, nor can it be relinked to it without a reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment or the amendment being amended. The right to own and carry a gun is entirely independent of militia service and any law requiring a person to join a militia in order to exercise that right is unconstitutional. As it stands right now, NY and the other states are already able to set up standards in order to be issued a permit. Passing a background check, minimum age, a training requirement, all of that already exists in most shall issue states and that standard is ok in the eyes of the the court. NY can do that, but trying to tie to a requirement to join a state militia is just going to get the law tossed out by the courts.

[PTWB]

8. You'll have to get a new SCOTUS for that

The SCOTUS interpretation of the operative clause of the 2nd amendment is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, which the court says should be interpreted to mean that the right to own and carry a weapon for self defense is an individual right and not dependent upon service in the militia.

We will have to change the composition of the SCOTUS or change / repeal the second amendment to change this ruling.

[AntiFascist]

13. There are aspects of the 2nd Amendment that apply to States rights over that of Federal government..

the idea of a militia being necessary for a free State, some interpret as referring to the liberties of individuals within a State independent of Federal oversight, including the right to bear arms. Within this context, I'm proposing that a State could define a State militia under State regulations that serves the purpose of individual self-defense, with no service to the State actually required. I realize that traditional definitions of state militia require some service to a State, but maybe state legislators could change that within the historical context of the 2nd amendment. This might appeal to the current SCOTUS understanding of that historical context.

[Aroundabout23]

14. a humper will be by soon to tell you why that won't work

Been watching it all day long.