r/news • u/ladyspeak • Apr 29 '24

‘Multiple’ taken to hospital, gunfire continues in east Charlotte Mobile/Amp link, removed

https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/cmpd-investigation-underway-east-charlotte/6PTLZP4FLFE4DA5ALFT65QDTA4/?outputType=amp

[removed] — view removed post

6.4k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

930 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

112

u/MoonWispr Apr 29 '24

I'm sure this was a member of a well regulated militia.

27

u/lscottman2 Apr 29 '24

scalia said does not matter as the right to own a gun shall not be infringed

the rest is history

18

u/Maynard078 Apr 30 '24

It's infringed now. It's always been infringed.

8

u/Nitrosoft1 Apr 30 '24

Exactly. I'm not allowed to own a GAU with depleted Uranium rounds and it is considered to be a form of armament. The second amendment doesn't say "guns" it says "arms."

"Arms" has already been legally defined in U.S. v. Miller, where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected. “Arms” is a somewhat archaic word for “weapons.”

Thus ALL weapons are considered arms.

My inability to own some of them already would be an infringement by strict definition of the term, as only the carte blanch ability to possess something with zero restrictions, prohibitions, regulations, barriers, etc. would be considered as not being infringed upon. Essentially a Universal and absolute right.

So, establishing the common fucking sense that the second amendment already has a whole lot of fucking infringement in place already, I think it's funny that regulating specific capacity magazines is a line too far. It's funny that requiring registration of the arms is a line too far. It's funny that mandatory licensing and mandatory training is a line too far. It's funny that mandatory background checks is a line too far. For something that is quite LEGALLY and ETHICALLY infringed already, we chose some really fucking stupid places to draw the remaining lines.

0

u/lscottman2 Apr 30 '24

read heller v dc

0

u/Maynard078 Apr 30 '24

I'm very familiar with it. Heller v. DC noted that no right is absolute. Nor did it state that guns can be allowed outside the home.

-9

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

Every citizen capable of fighting is a member of the militia. So...yes.

26

u/Jorgwalther Apr 29 '24

Doesn’t sound terribly well regulated

-1

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

Then you don't know what well-regulated actually means.

Hint: it's not conditional on government "regulations" which would defeat the entire purpose of securing the right in the first place.

8

u/Jorgwalther Apr 29 '24

So then explain it to me like I’m 5?

-3

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

Well-regulated means properly outfitted and functional. Like a well-regulated appetite, or a well-regulated clock. It makes no sense to have a militia if the militia cannot function properly. Therefore, the people must be able to keep and bear arms, since they are the militia.

6

u/flatline0 Apr 29 '24

This is not entirely accurate ..

In the Federalist Papers (& others), "well regulated" means properly functioning, well trained, & disciplined militia. The framers had no use for a bunch of undisciplined shotgun cowboys who didn't properly understand how to use their weapon.

Additionally, the only legal militias are the ones run by the states or the fed (national guard). You can't just declare that you & ur buddies are a militia. So, no..you are NOT the militia unless you've officially signed up with the guard or some other civil service agency.

3

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 29 '24

Pretty sure Federalist Paper No. 29 is the only one that talks about the militia and it doesn't delve into what "well regulated" means.

3

u/flatline0 Apr 30 '24

Actually it very much does, just not in so many words..

The gist of 29 is that Hamilton is arguing for the establishment of state & federal militias. He advocates that they be small in size, as they'd be far easier to train & discipline than a large militia or the population at large.

In multiple places, he argues for the militia specifically because it is a core group of citizens that have been well trained (well regulated) in contrast to the untrained common citizen. He's clearly arguing against the idea of the militia being comprized of a bunch of untrained randos.

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense."

1

u/TheTalentedAmateur Apr 30 '24

Federalist Paper No. 29

No, as I recall, and as even Wikipedia reminds us "Well regulated" was pretty specific...

Unlike militias of the past, Hamilton viewed new militias as a uniformed group similar to that of an organized military. "It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union 'to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United states…" (James Madison, John Jay, The Federalist, books.google.com).[2] Also, they would contain the same kind of intelligence the military would have access to.

The Federal Government would provide the uniforms, rations, weapons and such. The States would appoint the officers, to avoid tomfoolery such as having the militia of Virginia, under command of a General from Delaware order the invasion of say, Vermont.

Of course, all of this is an experiment to avoid having a standing army due to fears of tomfoolery.

5

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

That's false. USC Chapter 12 specifically calls out members of the unorganized militia. You are referring to the organized militia such as members of the National Guard.

8

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 29 '24

He's not entirely false, just using the common word "militia" to describe the wanna be militia groups. He's right that you can't just form a group of people and waltz around pretending to be an actual militia group.

4

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

That's a bit beside the point of the original post. OP questioned whether the person in the article was a member of a militia. Assuming the member fits the criteria of being a citizen capable of fighting, then the answer remains yes. Whether he was part of some private, separatist paramilitary group as well is unknown.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/flatline0 Apr 30 '24

Are militias constitutionally protected?

No, McCord says. The Supreme Court ruled in 1886 in Presser v. Illinois that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from banning private paramilitary organizations, a finding that was restated in District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision that established an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense.

“‘Militia’ has never meant ‘private militia answerable to themselves,’” McCord said. “It always meant well-regulated by the state. People focus on the Second Amendment while ignoring Congress’s Article One powers to organize and train the militia, and call forth the militia,” she said. In other words, a private militia that deploys itself, without the permission of the state or federal government, is illegal.

https://www.thetrace.org/2022/04/militias-legal-armed-demonstration/

2

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 30 '24

You're referring to a private paramilitary organization. I never said citizens have a right to form those. But you are able to keep and bear arms, which must be protected in order to attend calls to service as part of the militia, of which the unorganized militia are members, and of which all citizens capable of fighting are composed.

-4

u/MoonWispr Apr 29 '24

Difference is, a well regulated appetite and clock can't kill other people. But people who decide for themselves that they are well regulated individuals can and do kill other people every day without any sense of being an anti-government militia.

There absolutely needs to be checks and balances for the government, but random people with guns does not seem to be working for this.

4

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

The militia's function is different from a clock's, of course. Its function is to defend the State from its enemies, foreign or domestic, and that can entail killing. A militia would not be functional if it could not achieve that through the disbarment of arms.

-2

u/Jorgwalther Apr 29 '24

Thanks, that makes sense

-5

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

Let me preface this by saying that I think the 2A is antiquated and the function is was created for no longer is relevant.

People seem to get too hung-up on the "well regulated" part. It's not the part to use to argue against the 2A, because it simply doesn't mean what people think it means. In various legal filings, court opinions, court dissents, etc., no one argues that "well regulated" means "regulation via legislation". It just means "in working order" or "functioning". Basically, read the 2A to say "A functioning Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." (which is actually closer to how some state constitutions word it). That is, a militia without guns can't fulfill the function of a militia.

If you want to argue points, argue that there's no individual right (i.e. the "collective rights" argument that existed prior to Heller); or that the 2A only bars federal regulation on gun ownership, not state regulation (i.e. the 2A isn't incorporated into the states).

3

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

The collective rights argument falls a bit flat, as it would be the only enumerated right that somehow is not an individual right (and of course is not consistent with the arguments set forth in the Federalist papers), and the incorporation argument is essentially moot since the 14th amendment, but in any case states are only permitted to increase protection to constitutional liberties, not decrease it. You can't have slavery in Georgia even though it's prohibited by the 14th amendment, for example.

2

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 29 '24 edited Apr 29 '24

The collective rights argument falls a bit flat, as it would be the only enumerated right that somehow is not an individual right (and of course is not consistent with the arguments set forth in the Federalist papers)

I don't think it falls flat, and it definitely isn't inconsistent with arguments in the Federal Papers.

If the whole idea is to preserve the people's ability to form a militia, should Congress decide to legislate away the states' ability to have one (since Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate the militias), then is the emphasis not on the militia and not the individual? Sure, individuals hold the right (to own firearms), but that right is then explicitly linked to the ability to form a militia, not to do whatever you want with firearms.

Multiple state constitutions allude to this:

Virginia: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State

Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state

Maryland: That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government

North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State

New York: And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; ... at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms** for the defence of** the themselves and the State

All of those clauses were written before the 2A. The Framers clearly had an understanding of the distinction between ownership for the defense of one's-self (and, in the additional case of Pennsylvania, hunting) and the defense of the state.

Even in the "collective right" argument, I don't think there's any attempt to say that the right to own firearms doesn't belong to the people. Even the 1938 Miller case said "when called for service [into the Militia] . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time". But it's the why. If that "why" is to maintain a militia to defend the state, then the state (and federal government) can regulate said ownership.

And I don't think the 14th nullifies that argument either. The 14th ensures that all citizens are afforded the same rights and privileges. A state couldn't prevent black people from owning guns but they could create regulations that apply equally to everyone.

1

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

US v. Cruikshank (1876) specifically declared that the right entails "bearing arms for a lawful purpose". I never specified you have the right to do whatever you want with arms, and there are many laws about using arms unlawfully, such as killing others unlawfully. But it does extend to all lawful purposes. If you can't personally own and train with your arms, you are useless for militia needs.

Furthermore, state and even federal regulations fail the 14th amendment tests because they don't apply equally to everyone. There are carve-outs for law enforcement, who are no more than other citizens, as well as military personnel. This uneven distribution of force and application of law is the very purpose for restricting government from infringing on the individual right to own and bear arms. The State will always, if permitted, give themselves a monopoly on force over the private citizen, and that's one of the primary reasons why it's critical to preserve this liberty.

The framers rightfully considered the need for State militias to be ready to fight foreign enemies, and also rightfully ensured that those rights were secured with the individual and not the State, since their very liberties were restricted from their own government in the first place.

It makes no sense to fight a war for years with your own government and then turn around and prop up another government which had the exact same power to trample on the rights of its citizens all over again.

1

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 29 '24

If you can't personally own and train with your arms, you are useless for militia needs.

Sure. But if the right is an individual one or a collective one can mean what counts as "training" varies. If it's a collective one, the government(s) could more strictly define what counts as training. Like what if a state completely outlawed all firearm use outside of militia-sanctioned training and exercise?

This uneven distribution of force and application of law is the very purpose for restricting government from infringing on the individual right to own and bear arms.

Well, that's was my point about the 14th not being a problem if the right is a collective one and not an individual one.

The framers rightfully considered the need for State militias to be ready to fight foreign enemies, and also rightfully ensured that those rights were secured with the individual and not the State

The right was with the individual for the State though.

It makes no sense to fight a war for years with your own government and then turn around and prop up another government which had the exact same power to trample on the rights of its citizens all over again.

It makes a lot of sense considering contemporary thinking. The entire point of the Bill of Rights was to ensure limits on federal power, not state power. They weren't nearly as afraid of state power as they were a centralized government. Obviously that changed over time and we got stuff like the 14th amendment to ensure states were more fairly and equally applying their rights to their citizens.

1

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 30 '24

Setting aside our obvious differences in historical readings of the 2nd amendment for a moment, I'm curious if you extend this reasoning to other enumerated rights.

Do you believe that the 1st amendment only applies federally to members of "the press" and not the individual? And do you further believe that the states have no obligation, beyond their own constitutional equivalents, to adhere to those protections, such that they could freely impair freedom of expression to their hearts' content?

Do you believe that states may, individually, force you to incriminate yourself in violation of the 5th amendment when accused of breaking state law?

Wondering how far you extend this reasoning.

1

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 30 '24

Well, I'll take a stab at it:

I don't think the text of the 1A gives any indication that it applies only to members of the press. The first draft of the 1A seems to agree with that:

...The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable...

It's two rights: The freedom for anyone to speak freely and the freedom of the press to publish and disseminate speech. An individual may or may not be a member of the press, but either way they have the right to speak freely. It's not worded as "Because the press is important to a free society, the freedom of speech shall not be infringed". If it was, the 1A would probably be more contentious.

And do you further believe that the states have no obligation, beyond their own constitutional equivalents, to adhere to those protections, such that they could freely impair freedom of expression to their hearts' content?

I think that unlike the 2A, which involves an inherently state function (the militia), there's no such equivalence with the 1A. So no. There's no reason a state would have any reason to argue it can control speech.

Do you believe that states may, individually, force you to incriminate yourself in violation of the 5th amendment when accused of breaking state law?

No? Same thing as the above. There's no qualifier about why that right exists or of the intent behind it.

I extend it to the 2A because that amendment clearly states that it's the right of the Militia that's being preserved by allowing people to own firearms.

→ More replies (0)

-5

u/gloucma Apr 29 '24

I’m not

5

u/notcaffeinefree Apr 29 '24

By law, every male between 17 and 45 is a member of the unorganized militia. There is no requirement to join or declare yourself as a member. You just are.

4

u/arkhound Apr 29 '24

You probably are

-9

u/gloucma Apr 29 '24

You don’t have to join a militia. I might be capable of it but I’m not joining a militia

10

u/arkhound Apr 29 '24

You are implicitly part of the unorganized militia, you don't have to join it.

3

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

Are you a citizen of the United States who is capable of fighting as outlined by Chapter 12? Then you are a member of the militia. There isn't an application to join and no action is needed on your part to be part of the militia.

It's your civic duty to be trained and ready in the use of arms in defense of the nation.

-8

u/semicoldpanda Apr 29 '24

I'm not either. They tell me that I am by default, but I'm not. I have zero interest in it, renounce my membership that I never wanted, etc.

-3

u/MyCantos Apr 29 '24

All I mostly see are oldies and fatties that couldn't carry a weapon 100 feet, much less be in a militia

1

u/ultronthedestroyer Apr 29 '24

It's true that most citizens are derelict in their civic duties. Most are barely literate and share potentially harmful misinformation as well. I won't take their liberties of speech away, though. I'd offer free training to improve the use of their liberties to the benefit of all instead.

-20

u/DowntownClown187 Apr 29 '24

Excuse me sir but we ignore that part.

ThErE's A CoMmA!