arma virumque cano (et alia)
I'm surprised that Presser hasn't gotten too much attention since it pretty much shoots down the concepts of Constitutional Carry and the unorganised militia. in fact, reading Presser makes it clear that the object of the Second Amendment is maintaining a “militia" as is explained by Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972) The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.
BTW, exact quotes are:"It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.""The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms without and independent of an act of Congress or law of the state authorizing the same is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system, they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
Can we say, Heller?"(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."And specifically,"(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
That should be reversed at some point. It sticks out like a sore thumb. Can we say anomaly?
About as anomalous as the nearly forty states which also include the right to bear arms in their respective Constitutions.
That should be reversed at some point.Keep telling yourself that, Mikeb, and draw what comfort from it you can.
I'll wait here patiently for someone to show me where in the Constitution, the Law of the Land, where the federal government is given the power to ban anything.orlin sellers
It's called the legislative branch of government.
Believe me, all of this stuff is about as exciting as the history of England to me...But nice retort! Well done. I guess the key here is that Laci is quoting a dissenting opinion, whereas you are quoting a prevailing opinion. I'm pretty sure the militia question has been laid to rest some time ago. As far as I'm concerned, militias mostly need to be on FBI watch lists.I like the American government, the U.S. Armed Forces and the various National Guards. That's good enough for me. Nothing says help is on its way or you're going to be alright better than the rescue efforts of U.S. personnel.
A lot's riding on this presidential election. I really thought more would have been accomplished during Obama's terms (it's not quite over yet, I know), but another 8 years of Democratic control of the Executive branch should make a big difference in the future of so-called gun rights.