To me, the “well-regulated milita” became a moot point in the 19th century when all of the state militias were unified into the National Guard and state defense forces. The term was never intended to include private militias, as evidenced by the fact that in 1886, the Supreme Court concluded that militias are not constitutionally protected and that states have the right to ban them altogether (Presser v Illinois). So any state can choose to have their own militia or they can choose to prohibit them all together. It clearly shows that militias are under the control of the states.
The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens. I have no clue how we got to the point that we are currently in with 2A somehow protecting private ownership of assault rifles other than to blame corporate lobbying and institutional corruption.
That’s why, but how did they manage to pervert the amendment and get away with it? Before you answer, I understand it was ultimately the result of corruption, but why does no one talk about it from this specific angle? It seems so crystal clear to me that private gun ownership was never protected by the second amendment.
The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens.
My take is that it was to enable the militia, especially minutemen, to, as the text says, “keep and bear arms” in their homes and not during actual battles.
I agree that that is how it was intended, so in turn, the amendment provides for National guardsmen and state militias to be permitted to keep guns rather than all private citizens.
What people? If you don’t think it’s referring to the people in a militia, you are completely ignoring the first part of the sentence. From congress.gov:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t say all people. Considering the entire sentence, “people” implies nothing more than the people of a well regulated militia.
Also, Madison was very clear that the right to bear arms was for the militia in the federalist papers.
It seems you have your mind made up, but you’re incorrect. The punctuation does a lot of work there separating the prefatory clause. The people are the same people covered in the first amendment.
It’s even crazier when it’s 200+ guns on Long Island, where general gun culture used to be next to invisible. Growing up there I had not seen a gun store until I moved to Florida, I’m sure they were there, just not all over or obvious, most people there used to not own guns, outside of all of the cops, it’s suburbia with little shitty areas and rustic areas sprinkled in between.
While that seems excessive to me, and I have 40+ guns, we don’t get to talk about “need” when discussing rights.
Think on it folks. Gun ownership is the only right outlined in the Constitution where people talk about “need”. That’s a bad path to start down.
(And for anyone wanting to argue to “rights” angle, the 2A exists and the courts uphold it as an individual right. Those are facts. We can discuss them, but ATM they are not open to debate as facts.)
And just for fun, no I cannot maintain, shoot, gunsmith, whatever, that many. I’m basically at my personal limit for what I can actually use. Still want a lever gat though!
I'm of the same mind really. I don't even have an issue with someone owning 280 guns tbh. Collections are a thing and quality guns hold their value extremely well. Obviously someone under investigation for multiple homicides shouldn't have full access to his 280 guns but I also kind of think they should let him sell them; they're his and he's entitled to adequate legal representation (which is expensive).
"The defense’s motion was filed in response to a prosecution motion asking the court to allow the transfer of Heuermann’s guns and other firearm items to the Nassau County Police Department...the defense cited precedent in their motion, stating, 'When property is no longer needed as evidence, the government must establish, in an appropriate proceeding, an independent interest to justify any further retention' and reminded the court that prosecutors said that they no longer needed the property as evidence. "
AFAIK his MO didn't involve shooting so the guns aren't that relevant, he's not been convicted of anything, pigs just want the guns .
this Court should order the return of the seized property to a person designated by Rex Heuermann, individual or licensed gun dealer, who may legally possess the items
Not him personally. Seems fair. Cops keep stuff in evidence far too long. Especially in the case of valuables, they’ll often send them to auction, or “auction” where their buddies get to “buy” them for cheap. And even if they return them to the owner, they’ve often been kept in shitty conditions, becoming moldy or rusty or whatever.
I think you need to read between the lines here. The designated person will be someone who will sell the guns for him and give him the money. I don’t like police forfeiture auctions either, but I don’t want this motherfucker making a dime.
You’re right. I don’t think the state will give them up. There are any number of civil enforcement avenues it may proceed with to seize title to the guns, insofar as they are valuable. Writs of attachment, civil asset forfeiture, civil restitution. Son of Sam Laws, too.
Son of Sam laws mostly deal with profiting from the crime you're imprisoned for, there's no evidence (that I've seen) that this guy used any of the guns in his serial murders.
That being said, he's on trial for murder, and doesn't get to have guns. In the extremely unlikely event he's found innocent, those guns will be returned, but until then, no. They stay in police custody.
Add comment