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
 

TexasDem69

(2,317 posts)
3. 2d Amendment protects rights of the "people"
Sat Dec 30, 2023, 08:23 PM
Dec 2023

Not the militia, so this wouldn’t work. On edit, here’s an excerpt:

“a. ‘Right of the People.’ The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a ‘right of the people.’ The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase ‘right of the people’ two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (‘The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people’). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.”

Recommendations

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

Go 9th Circuit!!! Nictuku Dec 2023 #1
This one won't be appealed FBaggins Dec 2023 #15
Probably won't survive SCOTUS. That's why I advocate the States pass laws that to own guns you must be a member of cstanleytech Dec 2023 #2
2d Amendment protects rights of the "people" TexasDem69 Dec 2023 #3
It specifically says though that it's because we need a "well regulated Militia". A State can create said militia cstanleytech Dec 2023 #6
Well, sort of TexasDem69 Dec 2023 #7
It specifically says that it's written that way due to the need for said militia. If a State is running a militia that cstanleytech Dec 2023 #9
Right or wrong (wrong) - that reading is inconsistent with current SCOTUS precedent FBaggins Dec 2023 #14
Have they ever ruled differently in the past? EX500rider Dec 2023 #18
Differently? Yes. But nothing like this. FBaggins Dec 2023 #19
Indeed, with the Militia Act of 1903 still law, all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45 are in the Reserve Militia EX500rider Dec 2023 #20
It could be argued that the militia in question is that of one run by the State. That means the State should cstanleytech Jan 2024 #23
All able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45 in the US are already members of the Reserve Militia EX500rider Dec 2023 #17
Good republianmushroom Dec 2023 #4
Hallelujah for the 9th Circuit Hekate Dec 2023 #5
If it didn't fly in New York, it won't fly in California NickB79 Dec 2023 #8
Majority of the court are already backwards Marthe48 Jan 2024 #25
I don't see the pistol packin' dipshits, generally Kalifornia9 Dec 2023 #10
Keep up the work. twodogsbarking Dec 2023 #11
I know that the second amendment applies to citizens on public property tavernier Dec 2023 #12
That has been an issue the "no restrictions" crowd BumRushDaShow Dec 2023 #13
Thanks! tavernier Dec 2023 #21
Private property owners can always restrict guns on their own property FBaggins Dec 2023 #16
Thanks! tavernier Dec 2023 #22
How is "law enforcement" an exception? hunter Jan 2024 #24
It depends on their reason for being there FBaggins Jan 2024 #28
Just saying "no" has got me so far that I'll probably never serve on a jury in this county. hunter Jan 2024 #29
Absolutely. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." marble falls Jan 2024 #27
A small but significant start. marble falls Jan 2024 #26
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»US appeals court allows C...»Reply #3