Where Colorado Buffalo alumni, fans and friends come to chat all things CU. Go Buffs!

Off Topic Message Board

churdslick

Joined: 11/29/14 Posts: 353
Likes: 167


So why did the drafters include the militia clause?


Also, I don't think your interpretation of "militia" squares with the text of the Constitution. Article I specifically vests Congress with the authority "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia." And Article II makes the President the Commander and Chief of not only the Army and the Navy, but also "the Militia of the several states, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

These clauses clearly show that the "well regulated" Militia was not meant simply to provide citizens with a safeguard against an oppressive government. It was seen as a tool of the government that could be employed to assist in the nation defense. President Washington raised a militia to fend off the Whiskey Rebellion, and the Militia was later deployed to fight in the War of 1812. The National Guard was designated as part of the Militia of the several states under 32 U.S.C. 101, et seq.

As to your natural rights theory, that's an interesting point about the text of the amendment. But under Locke's essays, can't natural rights be sacrificed when we enter into a social contract? And wouldn't it be legitimate as part of that social contract to agree that people would have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms only for purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia, as Chief Justice Berger posited and the militia clause indicates?

That's not to say that the states and Congress would or should prohibit them in all other circumstances. Rather, it's just to say that the decision would be left to the people, except in for purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia. Even if the right to bear arms were considered a natural right, I don't see the issue with finding that, when the constitution was ratified, the people entered a social contract limiting that right for purposes of maintaining the well-regulated militia.

This is consistent with what the US Supreme Court held in Miller. Then, the Court changed course in Heller. It's a difficult issue, but I'm not convinced by the Court's analysis of the militia clause in Heller. It seems to render that clause as a throwaway that has no limiting effect. That goes against well-established rules of construction that prohibit interpreting constitution or statutory language as meaningless surplusage.

[Post edited by churdslick at 08/11/2019 1:36PM]

(In response to this post by BetterDeadThanRed)

Posted: 08/11/2019 at 1:22PM



+5

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:


Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:


Current Thread:
  Au contraire, the 2nd amendment grants no rights itself -- BetterDeadThanRed 08/11/2019 01:53AM
  Agree and Disagree! -- buffalewd 08/11/2019 8:13PM
  Also, does the Constitution address ammunition? What if -- buffaloaded 08/11/2019 7:00PM
  Excellent point -- CUKev 08/11/2019 7:28PM
  Guns are not guns without ammo . .. -- 84Buff 08/12/2019 10:14AM
  It's an unloaded gun but it's a gun :) ** -- CUKev 08/12/2019 10:47AM
  Tyrannical governments are scary -- CUKev 08/11/2019 4:24PM
  So why did the drafters include the militia clause? -- churdslick 08/11/2019 1:22PM
  Excellent - Thank you ** -- Buffs4Ever 08/11/2019 4:11PM
  There have already been limits placed on -- buffaloaded 08/11/2019 6:56PM
  The notion that a city or state cannot protect -- cswilliam 08/10/2019 10:39PM
vm312