Whether the individual is, or is not, a member of a militia is irrelevant to the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

It makes a HUGE difference as to the types of arms protected. If we accept that the second amendment only protects those arms that are commonly used by individuals for self-defense in the home, that's going to eliminate protections for a lot of weapons.

If the second amendment protects the arms used by a State Militia, however ...

"the people" … refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

Correct. And in 1790, "the people" were the white adult male citizens who owned property. And white adult male citizens were in the State Militia. And the RKBA of "the people" was protected by the second amendment. Because they were in the militia.

Now, over the years since then, the definition of "the people" has changed and expanded.

The Second Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms OF ALL AMERICANS.

Some arms for some Americans. From now on, five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will tell you which arms for what Americans using God-knows-what for their standard. Probably popular opinion.

States allow you to drive on temporary tags. Are you going to claim that means nobody needs license plates to drive around?

What the hell does that have to do with states providing aliens the right to vote and doing so in their constitution???

It's called an analogy. License plates are required, but states will make an exception and allow you to drive with temporary tags.

If license plates were a requirement of the state constitution, as with the voting requirements I have quoted, the legislature could not carve out any exception. It would require a constitutional amendment. If you know of any such constitutional amendment for an exception to the voting requirements in the state constitutions that I have quoted, cite and quote please. Until then, your analogy is pure garbage.

The New Jersey constitution of 1776, as amended September 20, 1777, allowed "all inhabitants of this State, of full age, who are worth fifty pounds proclamation money, clear estate in the same, and have resided within the county in which they claim a vote for twelve months immediately preceding the election, shall be entitled to vote...."

"... for Representatives in Council & Assembly." Nice try.

It was written 1776/1777. All inhabitants of th[e] State were allowed to vote until the law was changed. This provision was not changed until 1822. It was the NJ state constitution from 1789 to 1822 under the U.S. Constitution. Nice try yourself. It is a matter of public record that women were allowed to lawfully vote in New Jersey for its first few decades as a state.

Back in the early Federal elections, the only ones for whom there was a popular vote were the members of the House of Representatives. Neither Senators nor members of the electoral college were chosen by popular vote.

I can show where I get my information. You are merely showing your ass, which is where you are getting your information.

This time, let's try New Hampshire. The list just keeps growing longer, like your nose.

Constitution of New Hampshire 1784, Article XI:

All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the state having the proper qualifications, has equal right to elect, and be elected to office.

Constitution of New Hampshire 1792, Article 11:

All elections ought to be free, and every inhabitant of the state having the proper qualifications, has equal right to elect, and be elected to office.

We're not discussing the right. We're discussing the protection of that right.

The Second Amendment protects that individual right. The right is not protected by membership in the unorganized militia, or the organized militia.

You are discussing the right, and you are discussnig the protection of that INDIVIDUAL right, in terms rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Write them a letter saying you want to return to a bygone era.

Whether the individual is, or is not, a member of a militia is irrelevant to the individual's right to keep and bear arms.

It makes a HUGE difference as to the types of arms protected.

The second Amendment offers an individual right to keep and bear arms. The right is the same in or out of the militia. As no RKBA right is gained by being in the militia, no RKBA right is lost when the individual turns 45 years old and leaves the militia. His individual right is unaffected by passing the maximum age for the miltia.

There is no huge difference as to the types of arms protected it the individual leaves the militia. There is no difference at all.

Gramps has the same RKBA rights at 46 as he had at 45.

Correct. And in 1790, "the people" were the white adult male citizens who owned property. And white adult male citizens were in the State Militia. And the RKBA of "the people" was protected by the second amendment. Because they were in the militia.

Still bullshit, no matter how many times you pass this turd. You are at war with Heller ["at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." McDonald at 561 U.S. 780] and SCOTUS rejects your plea to return to a bygone era.

Heller, at 554 U.S. 580-81

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

McDonald at 561 U.S. 780:

Fifth, the 39th Congress’ response to proposals to disband and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of these militias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen 20–21. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members’ right to bear arms, and it was ultimately decided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members. See Act of Mar. 2, 1867, § 6, 14 Stat. 487; Halbrook, Freedmen 68–69; Cramer 858–861. It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

IV

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a bygone era.

The members of the militia enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the militia did not have a right to exist, and was disbanded.

You are living in a bygone era, citing nonsense.

The Second Amendment protects the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms OF ALL AMERICANS.

Some arms for some Americans. From now on, five justices on the U.S. Supreme Court will tell you which arms for what Americans using God-knows-what for their standard. Probably popular opinion.

The U.S. Supreme Court holdings in Heller and McDonald are the law of the land. That you disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court holdings, and are throwing a tantrum, is duly noted. Of course, it changes nothing. You may write a sternly worded letter to the U.S. Supreme Court and make your displeasure known.

Since 1790, the U.S. Supreme Court has been expounding the laws. Article 3, "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under the Constitution...." The Constitution empowers the U.S. Supreme Court to be the ultimate arbiter of what the Constitution says. The decide by majority vote. Except for the number of justices on the court varying from 5 to 10, it has not changed since 1790.

You are at war with Heller ["at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." McDonald at 561 U.S. 780] and SCOTUS rejects your plea to return to a bygone era.

Heller, at 554 U.S. 580-81

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

McDonald at 561 U.S. 780:

Fifth, the 39th Congress’ response to proposals to disband and disarm the Southern militias is instructive. Despite recognizing and deploring the abuses of these militias, the 39th Congress balked at a proposal to disarm them. See 39th Cong. Globe 914; Halbrook, Freedmen 20–21. Disarmament, it was argued, would violate the members’ right to bear arms, and it was ultimately decided to disband the militias but not to disarm their members. See Act of Mar. 2, 1867, § 6, 14 Stat. 487; Halbrook, Freedmen 68–69; Cramer 858–861. It cannot be doubted that the right to bear arms was regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored so long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner.

IV

Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home. Municipal respondents, in effect, ask us to treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. Municipal respondents’ main argument is nothing less than a plea to disregard 50 years of incorporation precedent and return (presumably for this case only) to a bygone era.

The members of the militia enjoyed an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the militia did not have a right to exist, and was disbanded.

You are living in a bygone era, citing nonsense.

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.

That's what I've been saying. And in 1790, that "political community" excluded women, children, non-landowners, non-citizens, slaves. The point being, in 1790, "the people" referred to an elite subset of the population -- the rich, white, land-owning, enfranchised, adult males. Not everyone.

The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms referred to them. Not everyone.

There is no huge difference as to the types of arms protected it the individual leaves the militia. There is no difference at all.

So "in common use at the time" means nothing?

And in 1790, that "political community" excluded women, children, non-landowners, non-citizens, slaves. The point being, in 1790, "the people" referred to an elite subset of the population -- the rich, white, land-owning, enfranchised, adult males. Not everyone.

The right of "the people" to keep and bear arms referred to them. Not everyone.

Still bullshit, no matter how many times your mind squeezes out this turd of thought.

Heller, at 554 U.S. 580-81

What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”

This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people."

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

There is no huge difference as to the types of arms protected it the individual leaves the militia. There is no difference at all.

So "in common use at the time" means nothing?

It means nothing at all regarding the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and membership or non-membership in the militia.

Gramps at 46, ineligible to be a member of the militia, has the same, precise right to the same precise weapons as he had at 45 when he was a member of the militia.

“the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community

Correct. We agree. And in 1790, who were "the people"? For one, we know they were enfranchised because Article I, Section 2 said "the people" could vote.

So, in 1790, who could vote?. We need to know that because the second amendment protects the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. I guess another way to say it is the second amendment protected the right of "the voters" to keep and bear arms, right?

Think about that then ask yourself, who was in the militia? Aren't they basically the same individuals?

Gramps at 46, ineligible to be a member of the militia, has the same, precise right to the same precise weapons as he had at 45 when he was a member of the militia.

That's not what the Heller court said. Mr. Heller can't have a military weapon. What made you think he did?

Prior to Heller you could make that case.

So "in common use at the time" means nothing?

It means nothing at all regarding the INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms, and membership or non-membership in the militia.

According to the Heller court:

"Held. 2. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Meaning if a weapon is not "in common use" it may be banned. Say goodbye to "assault-style" weapons. Maybe not with this court, but certainly with some future liberal court.

All because YOU wanted the second amendment to protect an individual right.

For one, we know they were enfranchised because Article I, Section 2 said "the people" could vote.

Only according to your creative imagining of your illusory but unquoted provision of Article I, Section 2.

As has been repeatedly noted, and confirmed by SCOTUS, the Constitution did not give anyone the right to vote for anyone.

Enfranchisement was solely a function of state government.

Think about that then ask yourself, who was in the militia?

I do not have to think about it and come up with some creative imagining. It is a matter of statute law.

Gramps at 46, ineligible to be a member of the militia, has the same, precise right to the same precise weapons as he had at 45 when he was a member of the militia.

That's not what the Heller court said.

Identify a weapon that a member of the militia has a right to possess under the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms, that he does not have the right, at age 46, to possess under the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms.

You will have to read Heller for the first time before lecturing about what is in it.

Mr. Heller can't have a military weapon. What made you think he did?

My comment you quote made no reference to Mr. Heller or what weapon he had, or might have had.

You confuse the military and the militia. The members of the military get to bear all nature of arms. It has nothing to do with their 2nd Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms.

When did you stop beating your dog?

According to the Heller court:

"Held. 2. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

Your quote is not from the Opinion of the Court in Heller but from the Syllabus which is not part of the Opinion of the Court.

For the statement in context from the actual Opinion at 554 U.S. 627-28:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M–16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The Miller holding has nothing to do with a 2nd Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms depending on some imaginary connection to being a member of the militia.

What type of weapons are included in the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with WHO has the right to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.

Meaning if a weapon is not "in common use" it may be banned. Say goodbye to "assault-style" weapons. Maybe not with this court, but certainly with some future liberal court.

All because YOU wanted the second amendment to protect an individual right.

Whether I want the 2nd Amendment to protect an individual right is irrelevant to whether it does or not. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly and definitively answered the question of whether the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. It does. You do not like that. I don't care if you like that not.

The right has never encompassed anything other than weapons, lawful to possess.

Heller at 582:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Heller at 626:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).

Heller at 627-28:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Review your bullshit at your #2:

You can't have ordinary citizens with tanks, SAMs, flame throwers and machine guns.

As I said at the time, this is what happens when trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You destroy the square peg.

The second amendment doesn't protect arms for ordinary citizens. It protects state militias and the arms of state militia members from federal infringement. What are those arms? They are the arms selected by the state militia as necessary for the protection of the state. Round peg. Round hole.

So what protects the individual right to keep and bear arms? State constitutions.

The militia cited in the 2nd Amendment is the UNORGANIZED MILITIA. It is that mass of able-bodied persons between 17 and 45 years old, going about the business of their private lives.

The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right and has not one damned thing to do with whether someone is part of any ORGANIZED militia.

Nobody is a membeer of the ORGANIZED MILITIA. The ORGANIZED MILITIA does not exist today. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms does. The 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms exists independently of whether an ORGANIZED MILITIA exists, or not. It is a right of the individual, recognized but not conferred by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals

• before they are age eligible for the UNORGANIZED MILITIA,
• while they are age eligible for the UNORGANIZED MILITIA, and
• after they are no longer age eligible for the UNORGANIZED MILITIA.

Your misconception of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms is noted.

what protects the individual right to keep and bear arms? State constitutions.--- misterwrong

Obviously, some of our State constitutions are NOT protecting the 2nd.

Yet misterwrong keeps repeating this mantra, like an idiot.

Will this thread ever end? --- Or will it go round a few more times, with both reiterating the same tired songs?

Identify a weapon that a member of the militia has a right to possess under the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms, that he does not have the right, at age 46, to possess under the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms.

A brand-new machine gun, for starters. Or a brand-new full-auto battle rifle. You know, like the ones federalized troops will have when they come-a-knockin'?

You gonna use your court-approved self-defense handgun to keep them at bay?

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty

Wrong, wrong, wrong. They weapons they possessed at home were expensive rifles -- used for hunting and self-defense.

The militia used smooth- bore muskets -- cheap, quick to load, and suitable for volley fire. Not accurate, but deadly when fired in a volley.

Read the Militia Act. It requires a musket not a rifle. The court is simply making shit up.

The Miller holding has nothing to do with a 2nd Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms depending on some imaginary connection to being a member of the militia.

Then why did the Miller court ask if the shotgun was suitable for use in a militia? Why even bring it up?

The militia cited in the 2nd Amendment is the UNORGANIZED MILITIA.

When the second amendment was written, there was only ONE militia. The arms protected by the second amendment were the arms used by that ONE militia.

All other arms for all other individuals were protected by state constitutions.

Identify a weapon that a member of the militia has a right to possess under the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms, that he does not have the right, at age 46, to possess under the Second Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms.

A brand-new machine gun, for starters. Or a brand-new full-auto battle rifle. You know, like the ones federalized troops will have when they come-a-knockin'?

You gonna use your court-approved self-defense handgun to keep them at bay?

Federalized troops are NOT the militia cited in the 2nd Amendment. The are the ORGANIZED militia, as opposed to the UNORGANIZED militia.

Heller at 624.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.

Under what imaginary theory of imaginary law does a member of the militia have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear a brand new machine gun?

Who may lawfully manufacture a brand new machine gun?

Who sells brand new machine guns?

18 USC § 921 et seq.

(23) The term "machinegun" has the meaning given such term in section 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845(b)).

26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)

(b) Machinegun

The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

National Firearms Act Handbook (ATF)

1.1.3 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act. In 1986, this Act amended the NFA definition of “silencer” by adding combinations of parts for silencers and any part intended for use in the assembly or fabrication of a silencer.⁶ The Act also amended the GCA to prohibit the transfer or possession of machineguns.⁷ Exceptions were made for transfers of machineguns to, or possession of machineguns by, government agencies, and those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.

⁶ Firearm Owners’ Protection Act, Public Law 99-308, approved May 19, 1986.
⁷ 18 U.S.C. 922(o)

https://law.justia.com/codes/us/2016/title-18/part-i/chapter-44/sec.-922/

18 U.S.C. § 922(o)

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

The above text was the result of Public Law 99-308 of May 19, 1986, 100 Stat. 453, under section 102(9). The effective date was May 19, 1986.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1986 AMENDMENT

Amendment by section 102(1)–(8) of Pub. L. 99–308 effective 180 days after May 19, 1986, and amendment by section 102(9) of Pub. L. 99–308 effective May 19, 1986, see section 110(a), (c) of Pub. L. 99–308, set out as a note under section 921 of this title.

Other than the "transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof," the only possible lawful transfer or possession of a machinegun is, "any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect," i.e., May 19, 1986.

Note that the militia is not the military, and the UNORGANIZED militia of the 2nd Amendment are just ordinary people going about their business in civilian life.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2012/title-10/subtitle-a/part-i/chapter-13/section-311/

THE MILITIA - 10 U.S.C. § 311 (2012)

§311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

As the only lawful possession of a machinegun pertains to a machinegun that was possessed before May 19, 1986, please explain your ridiculous claim that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms provides a member of the militia the right to possess a brand new machinegun.

As "the traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense," whatever makes you think that a machinegun is in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense?

The court is simply making shit up.

That's the best you have?

You have repeatly been proven to have pulled your non-facts straight out of your ass.

As you stated at #2:

The second amendment doesn't protect arms for ordinary citizens. It protects state militias and the arms of state militia members from federal infringement.

In the case where there was no state constitution, what protected the right to keep and bear arms?

The Miller holding has nothing to do with a 2nd Amendment individual right to keep and bear arms depending on some imaginary connection to being a member of the militia.

Then why did the Miller court ask if the shotgun was suitable for use in a militia? Why even bring it up?

As Millier was not in a militia, why did that alone not settle the issue?

Heller at 554 U.S. 623:

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

The right only extends to certain types of weapons. What type of weapons the right extends to does not mean the right depends on membership in the militia. As the Court observed, "[i]t is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said."

Heller at 554 U.S. 621:

Justice Stevens places overwhelming reliance upon this Court’s decision in Miller, 307 U. S. 174. “[H]undreds of judges,” we are told, “have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there,” post, at 638, and “[e]ven if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself . . . would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law,” post, at 639. And what is, according to Justice Stevens, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.” Post, at 637.

Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of Justice Stevens’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal indictment for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 637. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] 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.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “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.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.

The militia cited in the 2nd Amendment is the UNORGANIZED MILITIA.

When the second amendment was written, there was only ONE militia. The arms protected by the second amendment were the arms used by that ONE militia.

The United States militia. The militia has two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia. The militia cited in the 2nd Amendment was the unorganized militia.

10 U.S.C. 311

§311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Heller at 554 U.S. 595-596

2. Prefatory Clause.

The prefatory clause reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ....”

a. “Well-Regulated Militia.” In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that “the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.” That definition comports with founding-era sources. See, e. g., Webster (“The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades...and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”); The Federalist No. 46, pp. 329, 334 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (J. Madison) (“near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands”); Letter to Destutt de Tracy (Jan. 26, 1811), in The Portable Thomas Jefferson 520, 524 (M. Peterson ed. 1975) (“the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms”).

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state-and congressionally regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, § 8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the Militia,” § 8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first Militia Act, which specified that “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia.” Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.

The Court firmly rejected the wrongheaded notion that the 2nd amendment referred to the organized militia, a subset of the unorganized militia. As with the petitioners in Heller, you adopt the notion that the 2nd Amendment refers to the unorganized militia. Having previously shown the wrongheadedness of your position, you now seek to make believe that you do not know that there is an organized and an unorganized militia being the two classes of the United States militia.

The unorganized militia consists of all those enrolled in the United States militia who are not serving in the military under arms.

All other arms for all other individuals were protected by state constitutions.

What if a state did not have a constitution for 50 years or so?

How did THAT work?

Federalized troops are NOT the militia cited in the 2nd Amendment.

When the second amendment was written, there was only one type of militia -- a state militia -- described in detail in the Militia Act of 1792. Those state militias could be federalized by the President to put down armed insurrections.

"please explain your ridiculous claim that the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms provides a member of the militia the right to possess a brand new machinegun."

Infringing on the right of an individual in a state militia to possess a machine gun interferes with the effectiveness of the state militia and is therefore unconstitutional. Now, the state militia will probably insist that weapon remain in the state armory, but that's their decision to make, not the federal government's.

As "the traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense," whatever makes you think that a machinegun is in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense?

Well, that's the Catch-22. The National Firearms Act of 1934 banned the private ownership of the Thompson submachine gun, a weapon used by the military in WWII. So how can it ever be "in common use" by civilians if it's banned?

It was "in common use" by the military. So it should be protected under the second amendment.

The United States militia.

In 1790, when the second amendment was ratified, there was no such thing as "The United States Militia". Now you're just making shit up.

"you now seek to make believe that you do not know that there is an organized and an unorganized militia being the two classes of the United States militia."

There are two classes of militia TODAY, yes. But not in 1790 when the second amendment was written. So if you want to interpret the true meaning of the second amendment, you have to go back to 1790 to see what the Framers were referring to.

What if a state did not have a constitution for 50 years or so? How did THAT work?

Not well. But that was a decision the people of that state made. If they didn't want their state constitution to protect their RKBA, they didn't write one in.

California still has no provision in their state constitution to protect arms. Yet people own them. Just because something is not protected doesn't mean it's illegal. It means they're not protected.

As Millier was not in a militia, why did that alone not settle the issue?

Because the Miller case was about the weapon, not whether or not he was in the militia.

Let's say Miller and his friend transported a machine gun -- an obvious military weapon -- across state lines in violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act. As they did with the shotgun, let's say they challenged their arrest based on their claim that the second amendment protected military weapons. What would the U.S. Supreme Court have said?

As it was, the court didn't know if a sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun had military use, so they couldn't rule on it.

Federalized troops are NOT the militia cited in the 2nd Amendment. [The[y] are the ORGANIZED militia, as opposed to the UNORGANIZED militia.]

When the second amendment was written, there was only one type of militia -- a state militia

You excised who I said the militia 2nd Amendment made reference to, set up your own strawman, and argued your bullshit. In the vernacular of the Framing era, the ORGANIZED MILITIA and the UNORGANIZED MILITIA were the INACTIVE MILITIA and the ACTIVE MILITIA, with the distinction being no different than the more modern usage.

Aristocrotis, April 15, 1788, Pamphlet: The Government of Nature Delineated or An Exact Picture of the New Federal Constitution, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

... see article 1 st sect. 8. "the congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, to provide for organising, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the united states." By this clause the militia is divided into two classes, viz. active and inactive; the active militia will be those employed "in the service of the united states," ....

The second class or inactive militia, comprehends all the rest of the peasants; viz. the farmers, mechanics, labourers, etc.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, there was only one militia, the United States militia. The militia was divided into two classes, the Active (Organized) Militia and the Inactive (Unorganized) Militia.

By the time of the Militia Act of 1903, the terminology had changed some and was referred to as the ORGANIZED MILITIA and the INACTIVE MILITIA.

January 21,1903.

[public, No . 33.]

CHAP . 196 .-An Act To promote the efficiency of the militia, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes — the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.

Whether you prefer to refer to them as the Inactive Militia, the Reserve Militia, or the Unorganized Militia, that is militia to which the 2nd Amendment refers.

Art. 2, Sec. 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States....

The President was given the power to call the militia into service, and when he did, he was the Commander-in-Chief of all of the ones called to service.

Heller at 554 U.S. 580-81:

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Heller at 554 U.S. 589:

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the Mad Hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.

It was "in common use" by the military. So it should be protected under the second amendment.

A machinegun cannot be in common use by the people.

This would only present a problem for your delusional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

This is not a problem for the actual 2nd Amendment which applies to weapons in common use by the people in their civilian life for purposes such as hunting and self-defense which can also serve a use in the militia. It is what civilians show up with when called upon to serve.

You can repeat your horseshit all you want and it will still be in direct conflict with the prevailing SCOTUS opinion.

whatever makes you think that a machinegun is in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense?

Whatever makes you think you emit rainbows from your arse for purposes like self-defense?

In 1790, when the second amendment was ratified....

The Second Amendment was not ratified in 1790. It was December 1791. The first Militia Act followed shortly thereafter in May 1792.

...there was no such thing as "The United States Militia".

Art. 2, Sec. 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States....

Who's your daddy?

In 1789, when the Constitution was ratified by nine states, the federal Congress was authorized to call forth the militia, and the federal Congress was authorized to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia.

Prior to the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation strictly limited states from keeping up any body of forces in time of peace,

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

States could only keep up an unorganized (or Inactive [18th century] or Reserve [19th century]) militia during peacetime.

The militia of the United States, pursuant to United States statute law:

SECOND CONGRESS. Sess. I. Ch. 33. 1792.

1 Stat. 271

May 8, 1792.

Chap. XXXIII.—An Act more effectually to provide for the National Defence by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.(a)

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That and by whom each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia....

Heller at 554 U.S. 580-81:

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

Whither goeth your state militias?

What if a state did not have a constitution for 50 years or so? How did THAT work?

Not well. But that was a decision the people of that state made. If they didn't want their state constitution to protect their RKBA, they didn't write one in.

California still has no provision in their state constitution to protect arms. Yet people own them. Just because something is not protected doesn't mean it's illegal. It means they're not protected.

The idea of state constitutions being the primary defense against infringement of 2nd Amendment rights is obtuse. A state constitution can protect against nothing but intrusion by that state. Provisions of the federal constitution, federal law, or international treaty strike down any conflicting provision of state law. The 2nd Amendment, via the 14th Amendment, provides protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

How amusing that you find that the people who ratified the Constitution ratified a document that left protection of the right to keep and bear arms to state constitutions, yet you do not find anything amiss about one of the original thirteen states having no constitution whatever for more than its first 50 years as a member of the constitutional union.

The great state of Rhode Island adopted their first constitution in 1842. That constitution superseded the Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, issued under the rule of King Charles II in 1663.

Your brainfart that the RKBA is protected only by state constitutions is meritless. All thirteen original states adopted provisions of the English Common Law by constitutional provision or statute law as they chose, and limited to those provisions that did not conflict with the Constitution.

I would note that California was not a state in the era of the framing, and regardless of what its constitution says, or does not say, the people of California have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the 2nd Amendment protects individuals from state infringement of their RKBA. No state constitution can infringe the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, or the Federal courts slap them down.

Whether the states choose to say anything about the right to keep and bear arms or not, all Americans in all fifty states enjoy the same 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, and the 2nd Amendment, incorporated into the 14th Amendment, acts to restrain the states.

Because the Miller case was about the weapon, not whether or not he was in the militia.

The Miller case decided that the type of weapon was not protected by the Second Amendment.

As it was, the court didn't know if a sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun had military use, so they couldn't rule on it.

Learn to read the court opinion. The Court did rule on it unanimously and upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal indictment for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236.

Heller at 554 U.S. 621-22:

The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal indictment for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 637. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] 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.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added).

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/307us174

Question

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual's right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun?

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the district court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and bear a sawed-off double-barrel shotgun. Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.

The Miller court stated, "We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below, and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will bee remanded for further proceedings."

Jack Miller and Frank Layton were bank robbers and had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun. The Supreme Court reversed the District court, holding that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun as a matter of law.

Jack Miller was killed by multiple gunshots on April 3, 1939. Frank Layton pleaded guilty on January 8, 1940 to the National Fireams Act charge which was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

There was no appearance by anyone for Miller and Layton. There was no presentation of evidence before the Court about whether a short barrelled shotgun was, or was not, common in military use. In the absence of evidence, the Court could not assume it was common in military use.

In Miller, the government argued that, the Second Amendment “refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights.” Brief for the United States at 21.

Heller established that the 2nd Amendment right is an individual right and not a collective right. Heller at 554 U.S. 592.

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.

Heller at 554 U.S. 623

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let's say Miller and his friend transported a machine gun -- an obvious military weapon -- across state lines in violation of the 1934 National Firearms Act. As they did with the shotgun, let's say they challenged their arrest based on their claim that the second amendment protected military weapons. What would the U.S. Supreme Court have said?

Violation of National Firearms Act. There is no Second Amendment privilege to keep and bear a machinegun.

As for the shotgun, it was a sawed-off or short barreled shotgun.

Miller at 307 U.S. 179,

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.

Citizens, called to service, were expected to appear bearing arms of the kind in common use at the time by citizens going about their business. Citizens called to service were not expected to show up with machineguns.

Federalized troops are NOT the militia cited in the 2nd Amendment. [

State militias are the militia cited in the 2nd Amendment. Those state militias may be federalized (ie., placed under federal control) "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions".

By this clause the militia is divided into two classes, viz. active and inactive; the active militia will be those employed "in the service of the united states," ....

So what? That says nothing. That's like saying we have an "active" National Guard (those deployed overseas) and an "inactive" National Guard (those at home). OK. So? You have a point?

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”

No, the state militias consisted of "the people", a subset of all U.S. citizens.

The Heller court is implying that all U.S. Citizens were "the people". Wrong. As proof, only "the people" could vote. That's not everyone.

Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.

Again, the Heller court is selectively picking words.

The phrase in the second amendment is "to keep and bear arms", a phrase which typically appeared in military contexts.

"A machinegun cannot be in common use by the people.'

Of course not. As I already told you, it's banned. How can it be in common use by the people when you can't buy a new one? If a full-auto AR-15 was legal, you can bet your ass there'd be 2 million buyers by next week and it would be more "in common use" than a microwave oven.

"This would only present a problem for your delusional interpretation of the 2nd Amendment."

It would present a problem for your misquided interpretation. Under my interpretation (the correct one) a machine gun is protected by the second amendment for state militia members. The state decides if he takes the machine gun home or stores it in an armory.

For those not in the state militia, their State Constitution spells out their personal RKBA. See how simple this is? See how this keeps with the concept of federalism?

You want a one-size-fits-all federal mandate on guns. I don't.

The 2nd Amendment, via the 14th Amendment, provides protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

So you think the federal government is better at protecting your RKBA than your state? You want the feds to decide if you can carry concealed or not? To set the legal age? To define "mentally fit" and all other requirements? To define the arms protected? To define "to keep" and "to bear"?

You don't trust your own state?

The Miller case decided that the type of weapon was not protected by the Second Amendment.

No. They said they didn't know and didn't want to speculate and they remanded the case back to the lower court for clarification. They made no ruling on the case.

But their statement implied that if the weapon served no military purpose it wasn't protected by the second amendment.

"There is no Second Amendment privilege to keep and bear a machinegun."

But the Miller court concluded the second amendment protected those weapons suitable for use by a militia, did it not?

Citizens called to service were not expected to show up with machineguns.

In the War of 1812, many showed up with nothing. So your claim is meaningless.

In a modern state militia, machine guns and other heavy weapons would more than likely be stored in the state armory. But if full-auto AR-15's were legal, citizens would show up with them.

"Writing for the unanimous Court, Justice James Clark McReynolds reasoned that because possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument."

He did not say that. He said there was an absence of evidence showing that the weapon had military use. Quote:

"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."

But here's the important take-away from Miller: The U.S. Supreme Court is saying the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those weapons used by a militia. You cannot dispute that.

The 2nd Amendment, via the 14th Amendment, provides protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

What makes you think the federal government is interested in protecting your personal RKBA?

Do you trust the federal government to protect the arms you need to defend yourself from the federal government?

You purport to respond to my #235. The quote you provide is from #225 and wrenched from context, as pointed out in my #235.

[nolu chan #225] Federalized troops are NOT the militia cited in the 2nd Amendment. The[y] are the ORGANIZED militia, as opposed to the UNORGANIZED militia.

If you had the intelligence and ambition to use the google, rather than just make shit up, you could easily find confirmation of the two classes of the militia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia. (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)

• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

The 2nd Amendment pertained to the UNORGANIZED, the Inactive, or the Reserve militia.

As for the state National Guard,

The state National Guard is divided up into units stationed in each of the 50 states and the U.S. territories and operates under their respective state governor or territorial government. The National Guard may be called up for active duty by the state governors or territorial commanding generals to help respond to domestic emergencies and disasters, such as those caused by hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.

In the spider-infested mind of misterwhite, the state National Guard, when called out by a state governor to combat a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, flood, or earthquake, forms up into a huge firing line and shoots machineguns at it until it surrenders, and upon this need depends the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

My #235, which you seem unable to address, pointed out the bullshit piled upon bullshit you pulled and restored context and skewered your previous bullshit.

When called to service to engage in action as a military force, those who respond are the UNORGANIZED (or Reserve or Inactive) militia. They are the ones who brought arms from home with them to use in the call to service. They are the ones referred to in the 2nd Amendment.

Boldface and blue font IN ORIGINAL at #235.

#235. To: misterwhite (#230)

Federalized troops are NOT the militia cited in the 2nd Amendment. [The[y] are the ORGANIZED militia, as opposed to the UNORGANIZED militia.]

When the second amendment was written, there was only one type of militia -- a state militia

You excised who I said the militia 2nd Amendment made reference to, set up your own strawman, and argued your bullshit. In the vernacular of the Framing era, the ORGANIZED MILITIA and the UNORGANIZED MILITIA were the INACTIVE MILITIA and the ACTIVE MILITIA, with the distinction being no different than the more modern usage.

[snip]

As I stated, "[y]ou excised who I said the militia 2nd Amendment made reference to, set up your own strawman, and argued your bullshit."

The 2nd Amendment made reference to the UNORGANIZED militia, or the INACTIVE militia. I quoted a 1788 source for the 1788 terminology.

Aristocrotis, April 15, 1788, Pamphlet: The Government of Nature Delineated or An Exact Picture of the New Federal Constitution, Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

... see article 1 st sect. 8. "the congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, to provide for organising, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the united states." By this clause the militia is divided into two classes, viz. active and inactive; the active militia will be those employed "in the service of the united states," ....

The second class or inactive militia, comprehends all the rest of the peasants; viz. the farmers, mechanics, labourers, etc.

Heller at 554 U.S. 580-81:

As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.”

We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.

"All Americans." Deal with it. Or are you confusing "all Americans" with a small subset of college football players?

Heller at 554 U.S. 589:

A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the Mad Hatter. Thus, these purposive qualifying phrases positively establish that “to bear arms” is not limited to military use.

As the U.S. Supreme Court noted, your pretzel illogic is worthy of the Mad Hatter.

Heller at 554 U.S. 596:

Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state-and congressionallyregulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, § 8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise . . . Armies”; “to provide . . . a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the Militia,” § 8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men.

The 2nd Amendment right is an invidividual right that belongs to the people.

The militia cited in the 2nd Amendment is the UNORGANIZED (or Inactive or Reserve) militia. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against your bastardized reading of the militia referring to the Organized militia.

The UNORGANIZED MILITIA are CIVILIANS.

This time your bastardized half-quote attributes the words to me, rather than to the quoted article from 1788.

As is typical of your methodology,

[nolu chan #235] [quoting article from 1788] By this clause the militia is divided into two classes, viz. active and inactive; the active militia will be those employed "in the service of the united states," ....

[nolu chan #235] [the continuance you deliberately left out] The second class or inactive militia, comprehends all the rest of the peasants; viz. the farmers, mechanics, labourers, etc.

And your horseshit comment:

[misterwhite #241] So what? That says nothing. That's like saying we have an "active" National Guard (those deployed overseas) and an "inactive" National Guard (those at home). OK. So? You have a point?

Bullshit is not an argument.

Those stationed overseas are not the ACTIVE component, any more than those stationed at home are the INACTIVE component.

It is painfully obvious that you have never served in the military, and have not the slightest clue what you are talking about.

The ACTIVE component are those who serve in uniform. The INACTIVE component do not serve at all.

I did 20 years ACTIVE DUTY in the military. I was on ACTIVE duty in the States and Overseas. I did 10 years in the Inactive Reserve. I was a CIVILIAN during those 10 years. Then I was transferred to the RETIRED list. I'm still a CIVILIAN.

The UNORGANIZED, RESERVE, or INACTIVE militia are CIVILIANS. They have NOT been called to service. Until they are actually called to serve, and report and become part of the ORGANIZED militia, they continue to be CIVILIANS. Most CIVILIAN men spend their entire lives being CIVILIANS, even though all able-bodied men are enrolled in the militia from age 17 to 45. To be enrolled in the militia is analogous to being enrolled in the Selective Service System. Until you get drafted and get sworn in, you remain a CIVILIAN.

The UNORGANIZED, RESERVE, or INACTIVE militia refers to CIVILIANS, you thick headed moron.