Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dairydog91

(951 posts)
12. That's not exactly telling the whole truth.
Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:02 PM
Jan 2013

Heller did not reverse 200 years of history. For example, look at the infamous Dred Scott (1857), in which the majority held that people of African descent could not be citizens of the United States and thus lacked Constitutional rights. In its opinion, the majority commented that if African-Americans were citizens of the United States, they would automatically possess Constitutional rights, including the rights "...to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

As far as I can tell, the supposed "200 years" actually only goes back to Miller, a 1939 decision. Even that is highly debatable; it does not openly state that the right is collective as opposed to individual. What it does say, rather specifically, is:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Furthermore, McReynolds commented that:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Far from being a clearcut decision in favor of collective rights theory, Miller could very easily be read to mean that the right is individual, but does not protect the right to possess exotic weapons which would have no use if the owner was called up into an irregular militia.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

True; but ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #1
Yes. I posted this to narrow the discussion to cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #3
I like the "diminishing with distance" image Recursion Jan 2013 #2
Right! (I didn't mean distance litteraly, of course, but conceptually) cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #4
Not in FL... Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #9
Don't forget truebluegreen Jan 2013 #26
Yep ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2013 #5
Stand Your Ground laws have been passed in 24 states... Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #10
Not quite... Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #6
Which does not contradict the OP cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #7
I said not quite...I didn't say you were entirely wrong... Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #8
Obama disagrees with the liberal SCOTUS? jimmy the one Jan 2013 #13
Yep that is what he is doing. Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #15
Obama supported that in 2008. I objected at the time. cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #18
That's not exactly telling the whole truth. dairydog91 Jan 2013 #12
How do you get it so backwards? Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #14
Because I read the text of the cases... dairydog91 Jan 2013 #23
Just read the second amendment... Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #28
miller decison unanimous 9 - 0 jimmy the one Jan 2013 #17
Cite cases, please. dairydog91 Jan 2013 #24
The central right identified in Dred Scott tabasco Jan 2013 #11
Not quite.. X_Digger Jan 2013 #16
You're right, though central isnt the same as only cthulu2016 Jan 2013 #19
The court was asked to address one aspect of the right, specifically handguns in the home.. X_Digger Jan 2013 #20
IMO, the second ammendment defines a right to arms in defense of one's self. OneTenthofOnePercent Jan 2013 #21
The Second Amendment isn't about the right to own a gun duffyduff Jan 2013 #22
April Love 2ndA court case jimmy the one Jan 2013 #25
Jos Story & Blackstone jimmy the one Jan 2013 #27
Miller, 1939 take II jimmy the one Jan 2013 #29
cruikshank, presser, lewis jimmy the one Jan 2013 #30
ally ally in come free jimmy the one Jan 2013 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The central right identif...»Reply #12