State-by-State Gun Laws

[Tulecreeper]

So the 2nd Amendment only applies to males between the ages of 17-45 and females that are citizens and members of the National Guard.

That clause has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is simply a definition of what the militia(s) consists of in response to LarsMac's hilighted text.

 

[Skookum]

I'm so thankful we have a forum of constitutional scholars here to settle the 2A discussion once and for all.

What happens when your supposedly unabridged 2A rights start infringing on my unabridged right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I believe the Constitution is foundationally correct, but lacks modern context.

 

[DonTom]

What happens when your supposedly unabridged 2A rights start infringing on my unabridged right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I believe the Constitution is foundationally correct, but lacks modern context.

What happens is the SCOTUS decides. What you or I believe is meaningless.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Oldgator73]

That clause has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is simply a definition of what the militia(s) consists of in response to LarsMac's hilighted text.

I think you are very confused.

 

[Babe2201]

I'm so thankful we have a forum of constitutional scholars here to settle the 2A discussion once and for all.

What happens when your supposedly unabridged 2A rights start infringing on my unabridged right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I believe the Constitution is foundationally correct, but lacks modern context.

Can you please tell me how any members of the forum or I have infringed on any of those rights?

 

[Skookum]

Can you please tell me how any members of the forum or I have infringed on any of those rights?

I don't know, have you? I don't know anyone personally from this forum so I can't answer that. The question is more about situations like the Pulse nightclub shooting, Sandy Hook, or January 6th, or seniors who feel intimidated and unsafe because Walmarts in redneck hotbeds of America have become emporiums of open-carry bravado.

 

[Tulecreeper]

I think you are very confused.

Nope, I stand by my statement. 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is merely the definition of what constitutes the militia(s).

 

[Oldgator73]

Nope, I stand by my statement. 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. It is merely the definition of what constitutes the militia(s).

So you are saying the authors of the constitution did not have this interpretation in mind when they came up with the 2 Amendment.

 

[Tulecreeper]

So you are saying the authors of the constitution did not have this interpretation in mind when they came up with the 2 Amendment.

I can't speak to that. 10 U.S. Code § 246 was written well after the Bill of Rights - my research says it was first written in 1916 - and has been amended multiple times since it was first enacted.

 

[Oldgator73]

I can't speak to that. 10 U.S. Code § 246 was written well after the Bill of Rights - my research says it was first written in 1916 - and has been amended multiple times since it was first drawn up.

I guess the U.S. does not recognize U.S. Code.

 

[Tulecreeper]

I guess the U.S. does not recognize U.S. Code.

Why would you say that? The definition is:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...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 <this would include the Reserves of each branch, although the females don't have to be actual citizens these days>.

 

[Oldgator73]

Why would you say that? The definition is:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...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 <this would include the Reserves of each branch, although the females don't have to be actual citizens these days>.

I say that because if we recognized that definition then according to the Constitution only males between 17 and 45 and women that are members of the National Guard.

 

[Skookum]

Is she part of a militia?

Woman claiming God told her to go on shooting spree because of solar eclipse shoots drivers on Florida interstate, police say

The suspect "checked out of a local hotel and told the staff she was going on a shooting spree, directed by 'God' in relation to the solar eclipse," police said.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Tulecreeper]

Is she part of a militia?

Woman claiming God told her to go on shooting spree because of solar eclipse shoots drivers on Florida interstate, police say

The suspect "checked out of a local hotel and told the staff she was going on a shooting spree, directed by 'God' in relation to the solar eclipse," police said.

www.cbsnews.com

In writing, yes. Legally, now, I believe she is prohibited from service.

 

[Tulecreeper]

I say that because if we recognized that definition then according to the Constitution only males between 17 and 45 and women that are members of the National Guard.

It appears you didn't finish your thought/sentence. "...only males between 17 and 45 and women that are members of the National Guard." are what? Allowed to possess weapons/firearms? If that is your point, again I will say that 10 U.S. Code § 246 is not part of the Bill of Rights. It is simply the federal definition of the militia(s) has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

 

[DonTom]

Is she part of a militia?

A nut case who shouldn't be allowed to be around guns. And by law, isn't allowed.

But such people can find countless other ways to murder people. Here in Reno we have had a couple of nut cases who used their car as a weapon.

Here is one such case. Six dead. 23 more injured. Perhaps we need more car control laws . . . . .

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

A nut case who shouldn't be allowed to be around guns. And by law, isn't allowed.

But such people can find countless other ways to murder people. Here in Reno we have had a couple of nut cases who used their car as a weapon.

Here is one such case. Six dead. 23 more injured. Perhaps we need more car control laws . . . . .

-Don- Reno, NV

Well, she's probably not allowed to own a gun anymore. At least one would hope, although the 2A in the absolute most unabridged sense says she probably can.

Anything can be misused as a weapon including a car, or a butter knife. A semi-automatic assault rifle is, actually, a weapon designed to murder. Let's not deflect to whataboutism or relativism. There are companies which sell weapons of war to ordinary citizens, sane or not, for profit. I'm not sure the authors of the Constitution envisioned this scenario. Nor did they envision "legal" ownership of guns by members of a militia for purposes of overthrowing democracy and the rule of law.

 

[Babe2201]

Well, she's probably not allowed to own a gun anymore. At least one would hope, although the 2A in the absolute most unabridged sense says she probably can.

Anything can be misused as a weapon including a car, or a butter knife. A semi-automatic assault rifle is, actually, a weapon designed to murder. Let's not deflect to whataboutism or relativism. There are companies which sell weapons of war to ordinary citizens, sane or not, for profit. I'm not sure the authors of the Constitution envisioned this scenario. Nor did they envision "legal" ownership of guns by members of a militia for purposes of overthrowing democracy and the rule of law.

No they did not but not sure how that pertains to anything we have seen. They did however intend it to defend against tyranny. Something that is lost to most if not all anti 2A people.

The last time I checked murder was already against the law so how will more laws help?

 

[Skookum]

No they did not but not sure how that pertains to anything we have seen. They did however intend it to defend against tyranny. Something that is lost to most if not all anti 2A people.

The last time I checked murder was already against the law so how will more laws help?

If tyranny is using nuclear weapons, does that mean we need a 3A to allow ordinary citizens to carry nukes too?

I stand by my assertion that the 2A lacks modern context. I don't have an answer, but I can easily see the ways in which it's become a problem. And pro-2A folks don't have an answer either other than let everyone carry a gun and too bad for the people who get blown away. That's what it comes down to.

 

[Babe2201]

If tyranny is using nuclear weapons, does that mean we need a 3A to allow ordinary citizens to carry nukes too?

I stand by my assertion that the 2A lacks modern context. I don't have an answer, but I can easily see the ways in which it's become a problem. And pro-2A folks don't have an answer either other than let everyone carry a gun and too bad for the people who get blown away. That's what it comes down to.

Can't the same thing be said about the 1A? Was there Facebook, Twitter, and such when that was written?

I don't feel I should be stripped based on what some crazed maniac does. Not sure why that is so hard to grasp?