Supreme Court Confirms 2A Applies to all Bearable Arms!

By Dean Weingarten

Pile of Guns
Supreme Court Confirms 2A Applies to all Bearable Arms!
Dean Weingarten
Dean Weingarten

Arizona – -( In a historic, but extremely short unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,”.  

As this is an enormous class of nearly all weapons, the decision is properly applied to knives and clubs, and nearly all firearms that have been sold in the United States. 

Nearly all types of firearms are more common than stun guns.


But in an unsigned opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court Monday vacated that ruling. It said the Massachusetts court improperly found that Second Amendment protection applies only to weapons that were in common use at the time of the nation's founding.

Referring to its landmark 2008 ruling on handguns in the home, the justices said the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” even those not in existence at the time of the founding.

Supreme Court and Guns
Supreme Court Confirms 2A Applies to all Bearable Arms

The unsigned opinion is very short.  It is sparse, as noted by justices Thomas and Alito.  Alito writes a much longer and more forceful opinion in concurrence.  It could, and should, have gone much further.  None the less, it is an enormous win for Second Amendment supporters, and it extends far beyond stun guns and Massachusetts.  Because the opinion is short, here is the unanimous opinion, without Justice Alito's concurrence, which is at the link.

14-10078 Caetano v. Massachusetts(pdf) :

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016)
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment




No. 14–10078.Decided March 21, 2016



The Court has held that “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,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v.Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

There is strong language in this opinion.  If 200,000 stun guns in the U.S. are “common”, it is hard to believe that 5 million AR-15s and millions of other semi-automatic rifles are “unusual”.

If stun guns are common and protected by the Second Amendment, then so are knives, clubs, and future weaponry.

The case lays to rest the idea that courts can simply say anything other than handguns are “uncommon” or “unusual” and are therefore exempt from Second Amendment protections.

This case will be cited far into the future.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included. Link to Gun Watch

About Dean Weingarten;

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of constitutional carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and recently retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

  • 160 thoughts on “Supreme Court Confirms 2A Applies to all Bearable Arms!

    1. They argued that the court should rely not on the due process clause but on the h Amendment’s “privileges or immunities” clause, which says that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” There is evidence that the authors of the clause specifically wanted it to apply to allow freed slaves to have guns to defend themselves.
      By the way! The best essay writing service –
      And Happy New Year!

    2. According to this the United States Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment applies “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” (CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS).

      Now, April 6, 2018, a federal judge has upheld Massachusetts’ ban on “assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, declaring that the weapons were not protected by the Second Amendment.”

      What the hell is going on with the Judicary? Here’s s link to the article:

    3. There is exactly ONE salient issue about guns – in fact, there’s only one primary issue regarding all weapons…

      That single factor (which has nothing – at all – to do with caliber, barrel length, ammunition capacity, etc) is extremely simple and straightforward… the ONLY thing that matters about a gun is “who’s holding it – and why!”

    4. Ok, so this ruling tells us that ALL EIGHT of the justices agreed that the states are getting too freakin carried away, and that no gun law, federal OR state, can conflict with the Constitution which CLEARLY and simply states that as long as I can carry it, I can own and travel with any freakin weapon I want any time I want, and that whatever the heck is in my home is NO BUSINESS of the state. Of course they never let anyone off the hook for using those weapons in crimes against others. No, defending your home against an oppressive state is not a crime. Its a duty and a right. So where are the NRA, the ACLU, and the other organizations which exist because we are still fighting our own government for rights we were supposed to have all along? Being villified in the press as being somehow against the American way. Everyone must file suit against every state that restricts our constitutional right to keep (own), and bear (carry) arms (weapons of any kind).
      Oh! And next time you hear some moron using the term “dangerous weapons”, smack them. Weapons are kinda useless if theyre not inherently dangerous. Duh! Of course knives, clubs, firearms slingshots, and the Presidents pen are all dangerous and can kill people. Theyre supposed to be. That shouldnt make them bad or illegal. Using them to harm innocent people is already illegal. Duh! More rules, policies, regulationsand laws NEVER EVER solved any probl rm, at least without creating new and bigger ones.

    5. Finally, one for the 2a good guys, but lets see how long it lasts before
      the democreeps get their hands on it, and start passing meaningless
      laws to try to shoot it down. Lets hope it does last for many generations
      to come, but I won’t be here to see it, but maybe the grand kids will.

    6. What do we say?

      What to our Founding Fathers do we say
      knowing we just slept our freedoms away
      Would those in Gettysburg roll in disgust
      Knowing the price they paid for us

      Or the million plus that in uniform died
      Seeing WE THE PEOPLE just run and hide
      Like Americans landing a beach or in a reservoir frozen
      and those in the jungles when their number was chosen

      To WE volunteers all in Baghdad Street fights
      Or fighting in mountains all day into night
      What do we say to those whom have borne the brunt
      The Airmen, sailors, soldiers and grunts

      What do we say while they’re standing far off and alone
      While those that sent them from a House and a Dome
      Ignore the OATH troops stand for even through fear
      And WE THE PEOPLE allow it like we just don’t care

      What do we say to our own daughters and sons
      There willing to fight, as they say; “To the very last one”
      or friends in GOD’s heaven that paid the ultimate price
      While those in the House and Dome care but for party and their dollar price

      Do we SUPPORT AND DEFEND and fire those in the House and the Dome
      or listen to marketing schemes and just sit at home
      sitting idly by while those that do get enraged
      Like an ARMY RANGER we let them put in a cage

      What do we say to those that divide us by party, color and creed
      To feed their never ending hunger for power and greed
      Will we stand UNITED for hard fought liberty won
      Relieving ourselves of those that have un-become

      AMERICANS draw a line in this nation full of Hallowed ground
      In your Patriots heart I pray you again hear the sound
      Battle Hymn of the REPUBLIC sounding our plight
      “Listen up” House and Dome because “We THE PEOPLE” can fight

      1. EXCELLENT !!! From one who stood the line in our nation’s defense, upholding the oath I took at 1pm 1 June 1967, “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic”. Though 100% disabled from Vietnam, I continue to live that oath today because there was never any expiration date, and my personal Honor, Ethics, Pride, Morals, etc., bids me keep my word to the American people… ALL of them. I do not pick and choose which people I will stand for, nor do I pick and choose which portions of the Constitution I will stand for. I continue to stand for the Constitution rights under ALL Americans citizens.

    7. I took issue with the concept of “co-equal branches” of government. Wild Bill insulted anyone who thinks they are not “co-equal”. If they were, then SCOTUS could declare war; presidents could make amendments and send them to the states; states could make treaties without congressional approval. Then he attacks me for suggesting that Senators were intended to be responsive to and represent the states from which they were (originally appointed by each state’s legislature, but now are elected by the people of each state – still retaining their duty to represent as intended). As for taking a course at a Commie College, taught no doubt by someone who was only taught case and statute laws, with a requirement to “take a semester in constitutional law”, that then I would understand that the job of court cases is to “interpret the constitution”. This does not make me secure in the statement of Wild Bill’s vast store of legal accomplishments. But, I’ll give him credit for hutzpah (or however it is spelled), especially for calling things with he is in disagreement, a “diatribe”. BTW – the Supremacy Clause does not permit of “interpretation of the constitution” because it is made clear there that the US Constitution (or Constitution of the united states) is superior ONLY in the areas in which the DC government is given powers, or states are forbidden certain powers. The 10th amendment does not address supremacy, except to say that states or the people retain ALL other powers. Courts hear arguments from two (usually) parties and make decisions (either a judge or a jury) to resolve the case – the interpret the facts and evidence vis a vis a statute, or rarely some constitutional issue – they do not interpret the constitution to see if it comports with the statute, but rather the other way around, if it’s a constitutional issue – does the statute apply and is it constitutionally made – that does not require, nor “allow” interpretation of the Constitution. WB also says one must read The Federalist Papers in order to “understand” the Constitution. So, either the words apply that are written into the Constitution, or the Fed papers are the supreme; the latter – Federal papers were never ratified as law.

      1. I have gone long out of my way to avoid writing anything that insults you or any other reader, here. I did not attack you. Understanding what the Constitution means requires an understanding of the context and times in which it is written. This is a method that Justice Scalia favored because of the way that the English language is used has changed from that time to this.
        At this point, many would give in to the temptation to close with an insult, direct or implied. I will resist.

    8. So stun guns have long been illegal in NY, and perhaps other states as well. Does this ruling invalidate that NY law?

    9. Wild Bill – what I meant was that Congress decides the scope of “other than” SCOTUS. There was NO prohibition on SCOTUS to “decide law” in cases that came before it (Marbury for example). IF I am wrong, show us the text. Also, that the court exceeded (to some people’s thoughts) its “scope” does not negate its jurisdiction in Marbury, which is clearly spelled out as “between” a citizen and the US…

      1. Jurisdiction was not an issue in Marbury.
        With regard to the rest of your 10:10 pm comments, I hope that you will forgive me, but I am not following you. I’m sure that it is just me.

    10. No, Wild Bill. There is no such thing as a “co-equality” statement referenced in any copy of the US Constitution I have seen or read, anywhere. That is a fiction of 20th century socialists, who want everything and every “taxpayer” to be “equal”. The “separation” of powers was not meant to be a “co-equal” among ONLY the Federal branches, but also was meant to keep the states as a check – hence the appointment of Senators BY states. 17th amendment NEVER negated that Senators to Congress were under control of the states – it ONLY stated HOW they were to be selected. Show us otherwise. Again, fiction about “co-equal” – a legislative body cannot be “co-equal” to the one who enforces, or who tries cases – apples, oranges, and pear…. EACH branch of the “general government” had its LIMITS and powers. TWO of the branches of government – COMPLETELY over-looked in the “modern era” – the “people” of, and “citizens of” the states – as well as the STATES [legislatures and governors elected by the PEOPLE]. Why have the 10th amendment if states have no powers? Why have the 9th amendment if the people have no “say” (rights)? For all you keep lecturing me, I am unconvinced by your arguments that seem to point to a conclusion that the FEDS can do what they want.

      1. I am not making any arguments. I am reciting history as recorded in case law. I was just trying to help you improve your understanding of the Constitution. You will will never improve because you do not seek improvement. Your diatribe about no co-equal branches and states controlling Senators evidences an abysmal understanding of the Constitution. If you are so sure that you are right go take a class and see how you do.

    11. Wild Bill – You seem to be correct. But, if that be the case, what is the point of “between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states” – specifically as to relevance or reference to conflicts of laws among or between those entities (states and Feds, or states and states) – WHY have SCOTUS even involved if not to “decide” constitutionality of such things? Is it not the purpose of courts to “declare” the pertinence of suits at equity or other causes? If not “constitutionality” – again – then why have SCOTUS? I know. I’m not as learned (or brain drained as some would wish I were) on the subject of “law”… or as you seem to think me.
      My post should read – If you read Article III of the Constitution [spelling corrected by JG] you will note that the power to declare anything “unconstitutional is NOT within the judiciary’s power.

      1. And, remember, Wild Bill – the states MAKE UP the Republic, not the other way around. If you miss my “meaning”, consider that it the REPUBLIC of 50 STATES that “constitute” the “united states” – ie, the states came first. SCOTUS works for the STATES, not Congress, not the Executive. For the STATES.

      2. The point of “between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of different states; etc etc is a recitation of the S. Ct.’s original jurisdiction as outlined in Article III. You notice that the S. Ct doesn’t hear any original jurisdiction cases anymore, as it was intended to? The S. Ct. is too busy ruling on constitutionality ( a power that it does not have). Now you begin to see how long our federal government has been corrupt and who started it all.

        1. Oh YES. Many of us uneducated-in-the-law folks in the out-backs SEE and KNOW what you are saying, and we DO appreciate that you are saying what WE have know for decades (if not longer). “original jurisdiction” of course, as we “rubes” ( 😉 ) know has to do with what they are “supposed to do”, not what the Congress has ALLOWED them to do – recall that Congress is supposed to control them in their scope… or did I mis-read that as well? Thanks for agreeing with the POINT I have been trying to make.

          1. I never called you an uneducated in the law folk or rube. What do you mean by “…Congress is supposed to control them in their scope?” Congress’ scope or the S. Ct.’s scope? What do you mean control, as in force the S. Ct to come to a particular ruling?
            The three branches of our federal government are coequal and none controls any of the others.

        2. Yes, the various states came first and struggled under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation did not work very well, so the each of the states sent representatives to convention for the purpose of amending those Articles of Confederation. The representatives did not amend the Articles of Confederation. The representatives ACTED BEYOND THEIR AUTHORITY and wrote a whole new document out-lining how the government would function. The there was a huge debate that explains a lot about our Constitution recorded in the Federalist Papers that you have to know in order to understand our Constitution. Then the several states ratified the Constitution.
          Oh, and the S. Ct is the third and coequal branch of the federal government. The S.Ct does not work for the states.

    12. Gene Ralno – LIKE all good people, who use their OWN brains (instead of the various Bar Ass brains), you read just as I do, what “an” means as a modifier. Thank you!
      doing the clown: I’ve always assumed “…an establishment of religion…” was the equivalent of “…an ORGANIZATION of religion…” or “…an INSTITUTION of religion…” and in short, “establishment” is intended to be interpreted as a noun. I’ve assumed it may mean a “church” or a “recognized group” or any “establishment” so long as it’s recognized as established as the framework for the subject religion. I’ve always wanted this to be the proper interpretation in order to allow Congress, subject to judicial review, the latitude to recognize “established” religions and not recognize others. Seems prudent in order to prevent charlatans, terrorists, et al., from neutering lawmakers, avoiding taxation and other annoyances usually attributed to Congress. Wishful thinking perhaps and definitely an ambiguity that begs clarification.

    13. Wild Bill stated to me [in part]: Funny that you should cite Marbury V. Madisen. That is the case where the S. Ct. seized the power to declare an act of a legislature contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

      Wait Wild Bill. I thought Marbury was suing to retain a FEDERAL post to which he thought he should be entitled. That had nothing to do – in my understanding of the case, though I am not as well-read as you – with some STATE post. That was a Washington DC case – FEDERAL jurisdiction – NO state involved. John Adams (President) appointed Marbury, subsequently Madison (President) refused his post. Again, nothing to do with states. Purely “federal”, and I do not need a bunch of study to discern the difference – unless you know of some magical formula that makes it so.

      1. Correct, Marbury was suing to retain the judicial appointment. No state issue was involved. Purely federal is correct. You have your finger on the pulse. The S. Ct declared the federal law enabling (the Circuit Court Act of 1803) the appointment to be made to be unconstitutional. The declaring unconstitutional was a power that the S. Ct does not have (see Article III), but the S. Ct did it anyway and still does to this day. Thus the S. Ct made law. There is your magic formula (or as attorneys call it a JUDICIAL FICTION)

    14. Wild Bill – please show me what part of the US Constitution mentions “trust theory”. I cannot find it in the copy of “the supreme law of the land” to which I subscribe, expect my state and federal representatives to subscribe, and to which I should be able to find their oaths of office.
      Wild Bill says March 29, 2016 at 3:52 PM
      Take it easy Jim, there are just so many little things about the law that you are missing and are not going to discover studying on your own. For example, you mention contract. The relationship between US citizens and our government is based on trust theory not contract theory. Our founders understood the law of trusts and estates and specifically chose a trust model (i.e. sovereignty resides in the people, but is given in trust to their representatives not for their benefit, but for the benefit of the people). [Bill you say] -S. Ct rulings have precedential value vary very few are applicable to only those incidents.??? meaning]
      I didn’t say anyone was a rube. What I said was you should take some law classes. I am sure that you would enjoy them, and that you would excel. I am too old and poor to “take some law classes”. And, besides, of what value would they be, given that MOST law classes are taught by those who subscribe to the Gnu Whorled Odor, and the UN being in charge of “law”?
      What? Are they going to tell me that “case law” and “statute law” – LIKE THEY HAVE TAUGHT MY OWN SON – take precedence OVER the US Constitution???

      1. You won’t read anything about trusts in the US Constitution. To put the US Constitution into context you have to read a little history about what was going on with the founders when they wrote the Constitution. The Federalist papers is one source. You just can not read the Constitution by itself and under stand it. After that you have to read case law that interprets the Constitution.
        There are a lot of very affordable community college classes and non-new world order professors that teach those classes. No one is too old or too poor to take a cc or adult education class. You would enjoy them.

    15. I quit this discussion. Because those who understand “common law” and “common sense” are constantly bombarded by those with law “edumacation” or BAR certifications who think we are all stupid because we actually think that the US Constitution was only meant to constrain Federal tyrants, but the states can do what they want – even vis-à-vis the Bill of Rights. I quit. You attorneys know your BAR “rules” but you have forgotten your single lesson class in constitutional law. Which classes should have taught you that the federal government is WHOLLY a creation of the Constitution, without which anything they did would be null and void. States agreed to compact with each other to create the Constitution – not for the benefit of some DC based “congress” – so that the STATES could “meet in congress” (meaning of “congress” is a meeting) every two years to either make (or not make) laws, for the protection of the citizens OF the SEVERAL states, not for some meaningful way to subvert the principles of liberty, undermine Magna Carta’s ideals, or destroy the Declaration of Independence, or enslave the citizens for the benefit of a bunch of self-serving, benevolent, avaricious, confused but comfortably well-off attorneys, or “swarms of officers sent hither to harass our people, and eat out their substance”. I do not get the “point” of those who keep telling me (US) to go take some law courses, so we can “understand” what it is they seek to do to subjugate our liberties to their notions of the “rule of law”. “Color of law” is NO law, no matter how much lipstick you plaster on its whorish face.

      1. Jim: Very simply it is part of the communist and socialist plan of “dumb-down” the people. Besides the fact that if the people dared to believe they new anything about the law and could represent themselves without help from a lawyer to take a crap, that would put a hole bunch of college educated [communist, socialist taught] morons out of work…….

    16. Others aver that “many state constitutions” reflect the wording of the US Constitution. I would beg to differ, at least for the first states, upon whose constitutions the Bill of Rights were modeled. STATE constitutions were not anticipatory of a “republic”, but the Republic of the united States in America was based on what the Framers KNEW “could” happen (not “would” happen) should a rogue bunch of representatives obtain too much power. So, the US Constitution is more based on the experiences and historical KNOWLEDGE of the Framers, which were based on their own bitter experiences with rogue red-coats and other European-based despots, not the other way around.

    17. Author: DaveW:
      I believe yelling Fire! in a crowded theater is not protected speech where no fire exists if it can reasonably be predicted that injuries would result from the panic such an action would likely cause.

      You are correct, only (it seems to me) under state laws regarding “incitement to riot” (which is not, to my uncertain knowledge, a Federal tort or crime)… However, one would not be under the jurisdiction of the First Amendment, but rather under common law “riot” ordinances or statutes. Any attorneys out there want to chime in? I don’t mean anyone like me, a NON attorney.

      But, ONLY IF, injury or mayhem that caused either or both damages and injury were to occur would anyone be “guilty” of the tort or crime. Otherwise, how would actors on a stage, who had to run and yet the same words be exempted, in the many plays in which such utterances might be part of the scripts?

      It is NOT, and was never intended to be, a UNIVERSAL proscription on the uttering of the word “fire”.

    18. SCOTUS is 100% correct, arms are arms, past, present and in the future.

      Same for First Amendment Right, town crier on a wood crate in the center of the city,
      newsprint, radio, tv, internet, cable systems, sat news and radio, and who knows what is next.

      1. Excuse me? Where in the second amendment does the word “congress” appear? That amendment is specifically AIMED AT states AND the “united” states’ representatives to Congress. It is a list of 10 amendments that did not specify to whom the proscriptions were meant to be aimed, but rather an iteration (if not reiteration) of the RIGHTS the people held PRIOR to the ratification of each of those first 10 amendments. Otherwise, you would have to argue that the 5th amendment does not apply to the states. A trial by a jury of one’s peers PRE-dated any concept of Federal statutes that came AFTER ratification by the STATES. I wonder who is clueless…? The Second Amendment applied to the STATES and their congressional delegations, not the other way around. Congress is wholly a creature of the STATES, not the other way around.

        1. Jim,
          Actually, the Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are meant only to prevent Federal Government action. For example the proscription of the Third Amendment has never been incorporated against the States, and therefore does not (yet) apply to the several States. Meaning the States could quarter their soldiers in your house if the state wanted.
          The S. Ct has a policy of selectively incorporating the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights against the States through the 14th Amendment. The word Congress is not needed in any of the amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

          1. By your argument, then, the Bill of Rights – compiled and incorporated into the US Constitution BY THE STATES – exempt the States. Look through the BoR and tell me which of the rights incorporated therein exempt the states from compliance. NOT by SCOTUS “incorporation”, but by INTENT. Self-incrimination is lawful if it is a state doing it? NO. That was a right existing PRIOR to the adoption of the Constitution (itself adopted prior to the inclusion of the BoR BY the states to ensure that it was clear what the RIGHTS of the PEOPLE (citizens) of EACH state were then, and still are supposed to be. The Bill of Rights were adopted from 12 “articles of amendment” sent to the states for ratification or rejection – 10 of which were accepted and ratified (one of rejected later adopted as to payment of Congress). WITHOUT the Bill of Rights, the Southern states held enough votes to prevent the Constitution from being accepted – they made a horse trade, and we are the richer (and hopefully wiser) for it. But the BoR applies today as it did then to BOTH the federal government and to the states, since most (if not all) of the provisions were long held in “common law” (SINCE at least as early as Magna Carta) and were meant to constrain ALL attempts at tyranny. Why do you think they did not want a government to establish – or make law respecting an establishment of – RELIGION? IF the First does not apply to the states, then why are not many dictating Baptist or other religious things? Because the framers intended the BoR to apply to “the united” states CONGRESS, which at the time was NOT considered some monolithic KINGSHIP, like that of Henry 8th.

            1. it’s funny how your “establishment of religion” argument is used against you by wild bill and you then flip to protect your view for states. i do not agree with wild bill, but his reasoning followed yours on your “establishment of religion” argument.

              riddle me this: if fedGov is supposed to protect the rights of the individual (not the individual themselves), why in the world are there federal prosecutors?

      2. Why would you call that “clueless”? Are not the unalienable rights of free speech and religion and defense of one’s state of universal – and individual state importance – to be so incorporated? What SCOTUS may or may not have done in SPECIFIC cases does not have ANY relevance to the universality we all claim for unalienable rights! Why else would it be called the Bill of “RIGHTS”? Again, the word congress is not mentioned in 2A. It is aimed specifically at ALL governments that seek to invade or otherwise subjugate a state – or states – to some DC-based power. DC is a creation of the States, not the other way around. Likewise, from whom are 9th amendment rights protected – only DC? I think not!

        1. Jim,
          You are possessed of a fine, but untutored mind. You should really take some law classes. I can tell that you are reading and trying to put things together, but so much of this comment is half correct that it would take me hours of typing to straighten things out. Finally, I have noted during my thirty years of practice that unless I charge people a fee, they don’t want to believe what I tell them.
          I can not encourage you enough to seek instruction in the law..

          1. There is a difference between what YOU call “the law” (statutes and case rulings by humans called judges in SPECIFIC instances, and only applicable to those instants) and what the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution SAYS, referring as it does BACK to the limited powers granted to CONGRESS, and the Bill of Rights assertions in amendments 9 and 10. Perhaps you have “too much” law PRACTICE under your belt, wheeling and dealing for convictions or pleas. We, the people, do not live that way. WE take a contract AT ITS WORDS. I do not take offense at your lecture to me, but again please understand that many of us are not rubes in Hicksville awaiting an attorney to “give us the law” like so many California judges think they are entitled to do. WE, the people, of the united states, own this republic. YOU, the attorneys, do not. And whether or not most of us can articulate it, or even have an inkling of what I mean, we still own it. YOU do not just because you are “practiced” and passed a BAR exam. Take that how you will.

            1. Take it easy Jim, there are just so many little things about the law that you are missing and are not going to discover studying on your own. For example, you mention contract. The relationship between US citizens and our government is based on trust theory not contract theory. Our founders understood the law of trusts and estates and specifically chose a trust model (i.e. sovereignty resides in the people, but is given in trust to their representatives not for their benefit, but for the benefit of the people).
              S. Ct rulings have precedential value vary very few are applicable to only those incidents.
              I didn’t say anyone was a rube. What I said was you should take some law classes. I am sure that you would enjoy them, and that you would excel.

    19. Then it is time to abolish the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco firearms and explosives regulation on NFA items, class 3 items, etceterIa, etcetera, etcetera and let us buy whatever the hell we damn well want without all the background check harassment finger prints lengthy waiting periods and all the excessive paperwork.

      It is all too obvious that those of us that have served honorably in the military or in law enforcement, already know how to utilize and care for every type and quality weapon known to man, therefore there’s no reason why we can’t just walk in show our credentials and purchase whatever items we and walk home!

      1. I don’t see the logical train in what you say. First, you assert (as I do) that we should not have to jump through hoops, but then you say [essentially] that those who have “cred” should be able to walk in and “show our credentials”. What does that do to those who have no “credentials”? What “credentials” are being foisted on us already? Are veterans’ credentials of more value than my driver’s license, or my “word”? This is how “they” win – divide and conquer by any means. Today, your argument: those with cred should not be hassled; those without, well, we’ll think about that for another day. I KNOW that distinction is NOT what you meant, but it is how they have been winning since 1934. At what point does a “citizen” cease being a citizen? When credentials – other than a birth certificate showing both parents to be citizens – are required. “Show me your papers! Or, you will be shot!”

      2. Can’ trust veterans, according to the author of the Assault Weapons Ban, Sen Feinstein, who say, “no veteran should ever be allowed to own a weapon because they are all mentally ill with PTSD.” We already know she does not know the difference between an M-16 and an AR-15. With this comment, she evidenced that she does not understand PTSD; believing that every veteran was exposed to combat and developed PTSD, when there are a great many who never even entered the combat zone. She also does not understand that not every veteran experienced something so traumatic that they developed PTSD.

        Either she has no clue… or she does and she is a liar. We know she lied about the AR-15 in order to add it to the list of AWB banned weapons. She has lied in her claim that her actions to ban weapons has kept even a single criminal from obtaining and using a weapon. She has not prevented a single mentally ill person from obtaining and using a firearm. She has not prevented a single law abiding citizen from being hurt or killed by a criminal with a gun. Yet she will continue to brag about her accomplishments to make America safer.

    20. Re: Spanish or other-than-English.
      If the poster has read the articles and comments, written in English, why not reply in English. Do they not wish to be understood? Please explain.


    22. I’m no genius, but I can read. “All bearable arms” includes M14’s M16’s M4’s , the SAW, M60 , etc etc… So when can I run out and get my M249 without jumping through hoops???

    23. For those who think a UN treaty or any other treaty or law supersedes the Constitution, I would refer you to Art, VI of the US Constitution!

    24. I wonder if the Massachusetts court would have ruled that the 1st amendment only applied to forms of media that were in common use at the time of the nation’s founding.

      1. Right. But they re-affirmed by that, the condition in Heller, that all bearable arms are covered by 2nd Amendment. They did NOT overturn that part of Heller, which is PARAMOUNT and ASTOUNDING for its scope and breadth in our favor. They remanded the CASE back to MA, not the concepts in Heller! MA cannot overturn a SCOTUS ruling.

    25. Hey anyone, do you think this decision has a lot of ammunition (excuse the pun) to defeat California’s maximum sizes of magazines to 10?

    26. “Incorporation” strikes again. The federal Bill of Rights in its entirety was never intended to apply to the States, but over a century of progressive judges reaching for authority they never had by bastardizing the 14th amendment (magic amendment) has led us to this day. Now, the federal system in which the States would retain expansive authority over everything except those few limited and enumerated authorities they delegated the federal government, has been completely destroyed. Each State supreme Court is now meaningless. Each State Constitution is now meaningless. Each State Bill of Rights is now meaningless. We have centralized all power — all power — in the hands of an elite political class and their friends while we have smiled and applauded during the process. We are so screwed as a people…

      1. If you read the individual state Constitutions, each one essentially repeats the US Constitution. Some are word for word, and some are reworded but do not conflict with the national constitution.

    27. Regrettably, the California legislators will still play dumb as sh*t…and continue to infringe on our 2A right to bear “all” arms. D#mbF#cks.

    28. Reasonable is a lie and tool of deceptive incrementalism. Yelling fire in a crowded theater should be free speech and lawful. If you cause damage by your speech then you should be judged for the damage.

      All firearms are protected. Be judged by you damage only

      1. Jim, that actually IS the law. Yelling “Fire” in a crowded place is indeed protected speech, and NO ONE will be prosecuted for just that alone (especially if everyone around finds no reason to panic, and there is no damage done by the idiot who yells, in the first place). Several of the Founding Fathers – Madison, Jefferson, Adams – all specified in writing that the law applies only when damage results from an action.

        1. I believe yelling Fire! in a crowded theater is not protected speech where no fire exists if it can reasonably be predicted that injuries would result from the panic such an action would likely cause.

          1. “DaveW: I believe yelling Fire! in a crowded theater is not protected speech where no fire exists if it can reasonably be predicted that injuries would result from the panic such an action would likely cause.”

            DaveW: If that is true, and I am not saying it is not, then how is it not a crime for people yelling GUN !!! What about “swatting” incidents ???? Just asking because according to most State laws making a false 911 call is a crime, yet to my knowledge I have not seen anyone prosecuted for these events and they could trace the call and in my opinion, should be prosecuted. The anti- gunners are even encouraging there followers to call. It is exactly the same, if some one yells GUN!!! every one panics and runs and tramples children and whoever else falls down or gets in their way and half the people crap their pants… [ Reminds me of Black Friday Christmas shopping !!! Wait !!! Stay on subject !!! ]

            AND actually I would like to see the case and case number where somebody was prosecuted for yelling FIRE!!! in a movie theater, when there was no fire and no one was hurt. Because if it was real, I would think it could be used in a lot of FREE SPEECH cases and other type cases as well… And even a case where some one was hurt, because I don’t really think that has happened either. I know that they said about talking about bombs in an airport, and you may well be detained and questioned, but really could they or have they ever prosecuted anyone for it ????

            Not saying that anyone should go around yelling Bomb or Fire !!! But they should also not be yelling GUN either !!!!!

            1. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is the classic hypothetical explanation of why our Constitutional Rights are not absolute. I should, but do not, remember the case cite. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr wrote the opinion. So you are not going to see a case where someone was prosecuted for violating some law or ordinance.

    29. I wish all judges and justices has no political party and I wish we can vote for them like all other positions in the congress. I wish these justices vote for the preservation of the constitution and protection of the citizens and not only serve the interest of a chosen few. I WISH…

      1. You “wish for” the whim of simple-minded “majorities” – 1 vote to decide YOUR rights. No offense intended, but take care what you wish to see.

      2. I DO agree that I too wish the judges would “judge of the LAW” (the US Constitution) and NOT the whim of the mob. Unfortunately, most judges that have reached that high are OF THE MOB – and if not, they are subtly removed…

      1. Yes. IF they interfere with our rights to life, liberty, and property, they are null and void. WHY do we give power to a bunch of gangsters with fully auto weapons to protect our Senators and Presidents, that we do not allow ourselves to protect the future progeny of the Republic? The answer is simple. CONGRESS has perverted the rule of law.

      2. No, and probably not. The GCA of 1968 has been found by the S.CT to be a Constitutional exercise of Congress’ commerce power.
        The NFA of 1934 has never been tested in the S.Ct, but given the make up of the current S. Ct., that Act would probably not be struck down.
        This is why Hillary’s defeat is so necessary.

        1. This commerce clause argument is bogus. It was designed ONLY to ensure that commerce between and among states was NOT impeded by tariffs or other means. All “excess fees” for the cost of regulation or “levies” were to be turned over to the DC government, as “general revenue” – designed to keep states from interfering in commerce, which the FEDS were already prohibited from doing! It had NOTHING to do with “regulating” any particular product going from one state to another. READ your history.

          1. Well, Jim, of course it is bogus! Congress did not call it the Commerce Control Act of 1968. Congress called it the Gun Control Act of 1968. An elitist S. Ct. was backing up and elitist Congress. I did not mean to imply that I agreed with it. My apologies.

          2. somewhere is the words “general welfare” so we have a right to welfare payments…. FDR said it i believe.

            1. LOL. Of course, we all realize that “general welfare” is not “specific welfare” – the latter is left, by Amendment Ten to the STATES to EFFECT.

        2. A “finding” by SCOTUS does NOT “make law”. It ONLY relates to a particular case brought to it as an APPEAL, or a constitutionally valid case. Gun Control is not in the purview of Congress. Therefore, it is invalid, null, void, on its face if used an argumentation to “affirm” an unconstitutional “regulation” – via the commerce or any other “clause”. Please read the ENTIRE U. S. Constitution before showing ignorance.

          1. Well, the SCOTUS does not legislate law. And I did not write that they did, but the S. Ct has the authority to guide lower courts and case precedent is used to do that. See US v Bass, Scarborough v U.S. etc.
            Gun control may not be the “purview of Congress” but Congress is doing it anyway, and the S.Ct. and executive branch are both backing Congress up.
            You know Jim, I think that you should open up a gun store and sell a few guns without following the GCA and the CFRs. Then you could make your powerful arguments in a forum where it really counts.

            1. good one. No. I have no business sense, and would probably wish everyone could just walk in a take a gun, one per person, the way things were in days of old when patriots stood on bridges and repelled the most powerful military in the world… 1775

          2. The SCOTUS does not Legislate law, nor did I write that it did, but the SCOTUS has the authority to guide and control lower courts decisions by precedents.
            As to “Gun Control is not the purview of Congress…null, void, etc. etc.” Please see Haynes v. US.

            1. Excellent choice of a case for my argument that “felons” cannot “lose” their rights, once they have served their time… indeed, many go on to become writers (press), or preachers (religion), or otherwise “citizens”. Haynes v. U.S. makes the point – paraphrasing – that Fifth Amendment is violated if someone who is “prohibited” by “statute” from exercising a “right guaranteed” is not required to “self incriminate” and thus is incapable of losing the right simply because government “says so” by “color of law”… In essence, of course. But, we see how far it has gone, when we see how corrupt the entire Department of Justice has become, how the States bow down to the great poo-poo in DC.

          3. “A “finding” by SCOTUS does NOT “make law”.” — check marbury v, madison, then look at ACA, passed because a SC judge said “fine” in the law’s actual words was a “tax” in effect.

            1. Funny that you should cite Marbury V. Madisen. That is the case where the S. Ct. seized the power to declare an act of a legislature contrary to the U.S. Constitution, thus striking down that legislative act as “Unconstitutional”. If you read Article III of the Constitution you will note that the power to declare anything “unconstitutional” is now within the judiciary’s power.
              Marbury is the first instance of the S. Ct creating a power for itself that it was not given in the U.S. Constitution. So… actually the S. Ct did make law. Ask any first year law student.

            2. My post should readIf you read Article III of the Constutution you will note that the power to declare anything “unconstitutional is NOT within the judiciary’s power.

      1. Yeah. What is a “machine gun” anyway? Some weapon we train 17-year-olds to use for OUR defense? Should we not be able to use the same?

    30. I believe that there is a matter of law regarding what ‘would have been discoverable anyway’. Ben Franklin already was experimenting with electricity. He was followed by Edison and many others over time. Police officers have carried Taser type “weapons” for many years, having advanced through a wide range of weapons.

      The armed forces have experimented with such weapons for decades. I note that sawed off “shotguns” were in common use in the 1700s by the Marines assigned to English warships. They were used to sweep the decks of any force opposing being boarded, while Marine marksmen fired from the rigging and railings. Historical military use of sawed-off shotguns includes use as a primary weapon for Confederate cavalry during the American Civil War. These muzzle-loaded weapons were used primarily for close-range combat and to supplement the availability of more traditional short ranged weapons such as the saber or carbine. The availability of the source weapons and the ability to use single ball, shot, or a mix of both as the situation required were reasons why they were initially desired by those establishing Confederate cavalry units. They were replaced over time as more conventional arms became available and as the tactical use of cavalry shifted towards use as mounted infantry. They were also used as “coach guns”. Ignoring such uses would actually conflict with the SCOTUS ruling in re Miller. In Vietnam, multi projectile “anti-personnel” ammunition was used for the M-79 40mm grenade launcher, which troops in the field often cut down the wood stock to make them even more portable.

      In the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, where handguns are not easily obtainable, the sawn-off shotgun was a common weapon in armed robberies during and shortly after the 1960s, and it is this use that most people associate with the weapon. In more recent years, handguns and handgun replicas have been more easily available in the United Kingdom, despite an increase in legal restrictions on civilian ownership of handguns in the area: sawn-off shotguns were used in only 157 out of a total of 3727 robberies involving firearms in England and Wales from 2004 to 2005, while handguns made up 2501 of the weapons used in these robberies.

      A major problem with politicians and courts is that the majority of those who write the laws and make rulings on their constitutionality are very often unfamiliar with weapons in general, firearms in particular, and their only experience originates with Hollywood. Blade weapons, as well as slings, bows, crossbows, spears, blowguns, etc, have been used by military and civilians for centuries. It’s time the courts went back and studied the history of the subject, and the words of the authors of the 2A BEFORE they rule.

      1. Unfortunately, Dave, those politicians and courts that you mention are not interested in the truth. They are looking to shape our society, into what they think our society should be like. And if Hillary gets to appoint from three to five S.CT Justices, then we are really going to be slaves.

        PS Those M79 antipersonnel rounds are called flechette rounds.

        1. I recall the 90 and 105 mm “fleshettes”… steel darts. The M-79, IIRC, 40mm rounds contained 00 Buckshot.

          “Following the successful development of the M406 HE-FRAG round, several other types of 40mm ammunition were rapidly developed, including smoke and illumination rounds, HE-DP (dual purpose, fragmentation/antitank), incendiary, buckshot canister (for close-combat and self-defense). The key downside to the M79 was that it required the grenadier to carry an additional personal defense weapon, such as pistol or a submachine gun. This inconvenience was the key reason for development of the M203 under-barrel grenade launcher, which superseded the M79 in the service since early 1970s.”

          1. Hey Dave,
            There was a fellow selling an M-79 and 25 live rounds at the Wanenmacher Gun show last weekend. He wanted $8,500 for it. He had a destructive device manufacturer license (reduced and laminated) attached to it. And the place was crawling with ATF personnel so… it must be legal.

    31. I hear a lot of TALKING about gun rights and the 2A but if there was even 10 real patriots hillary would be burning at the stake n Obama would b swinging from a rope – aughtley connaugt’s old man was right

    32. Liberals will try to change the constitution as they have said they would do if that what it takes to get rid of our guns. Although this is good news it’s far from being over. Stay alert and keep fighting to keep liberals out of the White House and out of congress and the senate!

    33. I find it pathetic that lower courts have ruled and continue to rule with inconsistent regards to legal precedents.

      1. It is because We the People have not forced the Congress to enact laws to punish them for such things since 1896. USC 42, sec 1983. It has been completely deballed by the courts and is now close to useless. We need a revamp with a clause sealing it against judges ruling themselves out from under it.

          1. Mark Levin is a convention of states supporter and should not be trusted to have our best interests in mind. There is NO way Congress can control a convention “once called” – and considering that George Soros and many of HIS groups are calling for it along with others to the other “extremis”, this is not a good idea. Ever.

      2. That’s because we the people are too complacent in our daily lives and routines to bother reading are state constitutions to find and utilize the mechanisms within to remove these cretin judges from the bench, if for any reason, Willful Neglect of Statutory Duty as per their Oath of Office.

    34. You know the US Constitution in it’s untranslated purity was very clear. The 27 words of the Second Amendment are not hard to understand.
      One CANNOT tell me that the “founding Fathers” were clueless to the advances of technology. In fact they were very aware and understood the right to bear arms in it’s importance in regards to being able to own and use any weaponry commensurate and one step better than what could be criminally aimed at the individual.
      There is a major difference between a duel using two exact same weapons in a staged face to face event and having someone AMBUSH you with more advanced weapons. One does not take a penknife to a confrontation with tactically laden criminals and expect anything other than to die. Especially on those situations where criminals in government supplied those weapons to begin with (There is that domestic threat thing again) Operation Gun Walk and Operation Fast and Furious. Perhaps we should reconsider EVERY ‘accident’ where weapons, munitions and food supplies were dropped into the hands of ISIS so damned many times….

      1. Touching on those two operations, ( operation gun Walker and operation Fast and Furious ) I’m amazed that one other human being realizes that there was more than just Fast and Furious, there were in fact five operations, all reported in the Dallas Morning News back I believe in 2008 or 2009. If I recall it was, Gun Walker, Gunrunner, Fast & Furious, 7 Seas or high seas or something like that to cover the Caribbean area and one other operation.

        What concerns me about any of it is how mainstream Society allowed themselves to be dumbed down to have four other operations be wordsmithed into just Fast and Furious and the news media turns their head from the other four operations?


    35. Random thought: How does a new weapon become “commonplace”?

      Is that how they might approach it to deny us firearms?

      Just a pre-coffee thought.

    36. Most uninformed people today have been led to believe that OUR Constitution is some complex document that needs to be spelled out to them by Lawyers and Scholars. Nothing could be further from the truth! It was written by extremely intelligent men so the common man could read and comprehend it. Don’t be fooled by a bunch of pompous over fed weasels.

      1. it’s the new laws and regulations that are purposefully ambiguous so they can catch-22 their way around everything.

      1. This should void a lot of unreasonable gun laws and restrictions.

        After all, who isn’t for reasonable gun laws? Of course, that means that 99.99% of the ones on the books need to be repealed, because they clearly are not reasonable nor have any basis in fact for their crafting…just some appeal to emotion.

      2. Miller was already legally void, as the apellee, Mr. Miller, died before the ruling was issued thus making the parent case moot.

        1. True, Jack Miller’s body was found on 6 April 1939. the McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court on 15 May 1939.

    37. Yes. There will always be those who say the Constitution’s words do not mean what the Founders meant. But, as words have meaning, so too do the words that make up those meanings. If a right is unalienable, how can one “regulate” it? IF the words “shall not be infringed”, or “shall not be abridged” are succinct, and unqualified, how can one “regulate” them? Easily. Just by doing it, with the tacit acquiescence of EVERY state legislature, which, constitutionally, has the power and the authority to nullify any law that is not consistent with STATE powers and the RIGHTS of the people of those states. 10th and 9th amendments make that abundantly clear, and they are not unclear. NO ONE has a “right”, and no government in our Republic has the power, to take away a right from anyone without FIRST convicting them in a court of law by a jury of their peers. Period, unless for some reason someone thinks the other amendments are not clear… And Article 5 FORBIDS Congress – and states – from interfering with the suffrage of Senators to the US Congress. Its a neat package, with internally supportive articles and sections, NONE of which should be “taken out of context”. If the founders meant “only in use at this time” we would not have laptops and automobiles. And the use of opium would be lawful.

      1. If a right is unalienable, how can one “regulate” it? Here is how Jim: Judicial Fictions. First, we judicially introduce the fiction that a Right is not absolute, (e.g. You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre.) Then you introduce the idea that Rights must be interpreted “reasonably”, what ever that means. Now, the flood gates are open, every court interprets your Constitutional Civil Rights as what ever they want it to mean, to get to the result that that particular court wants. Finally, you introduce the concept that this is all so difficult that only judges, presidents, legislators, bureaucrats, and other elitists bastards can know or understand it.

        1. Wild Bill,you’re absolutely correct. The 2A is a constitutional,unalienable right. But the liberal socialists are trying desperately to suggest that the wording of the 2A means something other than what it obviously does. I’m afraid if we get a Supreme Court with a liberal,socialist,Jewish majority that’s precisely what could happen. Firearms regulation will soon become a states rights issue as It should had always been. Firearms laws and regulation will be similar to concealed/open carry/constitutional carry license laws that vary from state to state.

          1. If the Second is recognized by the US Constitution as being a God-given unalienable right, how can it be a states rights issue? To me, “shall not be infringed” has the clear meaning that gun rights shall not be interfered with by any governments, local, state, or federal. If any government has the power to regulate gun rights, even a little, you can be sure they will try to regulate them a lot. “A lot” being as much as the people will allow before being willing to do something about the restrictions that will inevitably be placed upon gun use and ownership by governments. If gun rights are a states rights issue then states can create regulations and restrictions as they see fit. Soon the resident of one state or locality would be unable to carry a firearm to protect himself in another state or locality. If we are willing to allow a little government regulation, we must be prepared to allow a lot.

            1. The Constitution does not reference “God-given” anything. That is Declaration of Independence ON WHICH the principles of liberty are based that we know as the “secured rights” in the US Constitution. It is important – VERY much so – to NOT reference any kind of deity or religion, because that is also forbidden in the US Constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion – MEANS: “an establishment” (a religion). It does NOT, as it has been purposefully interpreted by revisionists and atheists to mean “congress shall not establish”. “An establishment” is a thing, a noun. NOT a verb. To win this, we must stop referencing any deity or religion – we have a common set of principles – in virtually all religions – 10 commandments – upon which all laws are derived regarding civil behavior between people in a community, and the government has nothing to say one way or the other, no matter what some would like us to believe is government’s purpose.

            2. jim greaves: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion – MEANS: “an establishment” (a religion)” — if “an establishment” means “religion.” why the redundancy of “religion” immediately following “an establishment” — webster (a contemporary) defined “establishment” as “something established, or act/state of establishing” . . . so establish is a verb and means “to cause to be widely known” “to put in power/position/role” and “to create” — precisely meaning fedGov cannot tell you what/where/how to worship any particular religion. you are incorrect in your interpretation.

            3. doing the clown: I’ve always assumed “…an establishment of religion…” was the equivalent of “…an ORGANIZATION of religion…” or “…an INSTITUTION of religion…” and in short, “establishment” is intended to be interpreted as a noun. I’ve assumed it may mean a “church” or a “recognized group” or any “establishment” so long as it’s recognized as established as the framework for the subject religion. I’ve always wanted this to be the proper interpretation in order to allow Congress, subject to judicial review, the latitude to recognize “established” religions and not recognize others. Seems prudent in order to prevent charlatans, terrorists, et al., from neutering lawmakers, avoiding taxation and other annoyances usually attributed to Congress. Wishful thinking perhaps and definitely an ambiguity that begs clarification.

            1. True, the Constitution doesn’t reference God given, you have to read the Federalist papers, which documents the very public debate about switching from the Articles of Confederation the the Constitution or maybe it was George Mason’s writings. And there is a S.Ct. cases that correctly attributes the right to bear arms to God and not to the Second Amendment. So if there were no Second Amendment, we would still have the right to bear arms. Someone will remember the case name.

          2. Scrap that Jewish crap. Have you ever heard of “Jews for The Preservation of Firearms”. Please don’t be anti-semitic or racist. It is hard enough trying to convince people of the necessity to own firearms without throwing in prejudicial remarks.

      2. I agree. Judicial FICTIONS. Fantasies of judges, who have never turned a row on a farm, but instead have been but mere clerks in an office.

    38. I understand what it says but the politicians will never let a sleeping dog lie. They will have lawyers and other forms of scum look at it and say, “That is NOT what the court really meant”. and it will start all over again…..I think my late father was more correct that what I wanted to believe when he said it. he said, “We will never have liberty (he meant freedom from government) until we go into the Capitol Bldg, drag about 50 or 60 out onto the front lawn and eye shoot them. The remaining scoundrels will have taken to the sewers of DC by then and alerted the remaining scum that we mean business.” That may be too harsh, but what we have done so far has not worked very much in our favor.

      1. Remember how the Second Amendment starts, and ends after the words “A well-regulated militia…” meaning well trained to arms: “… being necessary for the security of a free state… ” (ie, EACH state) interrupted by the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, “shall not be infringed”. Simply meaning that the security of EACH state supersedes all rationales and reasons to own “arms”. Combine this as the METHOD of ensuring “security of a free state” with the meanings of Article 4, Section 4, and Article 1, Section 10, paragraph 3, and it is CLEAR that the Founders INTENDED the PEOPLE to defend their states from any invaders – including those to whom the US Constitution LOANED some limited and defined powers.

        On subject of “weapons of the day”, there are many accounts, and museum examples of many different types of “automatic” weapons, from Chinese and other “semi-auto” chariots that hurled spears, to Lewis and Clark’s several-rounds per charge air rifles (merely requiring cocking) – the era about 1800 was NOT “single-shot musket” only.

        1. Following the Revolutionary War, the Revolutionary Army was disbanded, save for approximately 87 who remained on the rolls to guard armories and to be stationed aboard ships. Everyone else took their firearms and other instruments of war, and went home to their families. There being no standing army, which was a position desired by the majority of Founders, it fell to the people in each state to provide for the common defense of the state and the nation. A “militia” ready to answer the call, as they did when England invaded the United States in the War of 1812. That concept was kept alive by the “posse” where the local magistrate put out a call for armed men to respond to some incident (such as a bank robbery or theft of a herd). Men responded with their own private weapons, were deputized, and went forth to bring the scoundrels to justice. Upon completion, their period of civic duty ended and they took their firearms and went home to plow the fields, cut hair, or sell dry goods. We were never supposed to have a standing army. To a very large degree, the Founders felt that we should not involve ourselves in international affairs, especially wars. The judges and politicians need to go back to school and take classes on history and government. They should actually read the words of people like Madison and mason (co-authors of the 2d Amendment). They were called before individual state legislatures to explain their words and intent. Afterward, the 2A was ratified as part of the Constitutional ratification process. Nobody would know better what they said and what they meant than the men themselves.

          1. You speak as if our 1st President — George Washington — never had to act as Commander in Chief, tsk tsk.

            I’m all for the 2nd that the Anti Fedealists required to ratify a very powerful centralized government. But many of you don’t realize that the “Virginia Plan” is the root of the big fed.

            1. If you paid attention to history you would have found out that Washington was not the first president..

            2. mr. romeu: washington was the first, under the new constitution. under the articles of confederation he lead a militia to collect taxes (for the government) from revolutionary soldiers that had still not been paid (by the government) – shay’s rebellion. this lead to the constitutional convention who’s goal was to create a bigger, more powerful central god-vernment. after ratification, the first president under the new constitution sent a militia to collect the taxes that put an unfair burden on personal whiskey production that amounted in many cases to an income tax (then illegal/unconstitutional until the 16th amendment reversed direct tax prohibition), as many farmers distilled unsold grain so it wouldn’t go to waste. they would drink, trade or sell the whiskey. a whiskey company would have a cap on the tax, which lowered the tax rate when as more was produced. a farmer wouldn’t have that luxury and protection.

              what a precedent from a president. just like #2 adams that had the sedition acts, to quell free speech; and #3 jefferson (who’d think?) that unconstitutionally made the louisiana purchase.

        2. Well regulated also means “Armed in accordance with military regulation”
          Military firearms a likely the “most protected” firearms

          1. The 1939 MILLER SCOUS case was remanded for trial to create a court transcript and evidence for the Court to review. The Court said, “It [was] not within judicial notice” about military use of shotguns, but the Court continued to say “that when called, the militia was expected to appear bearing their private arms” of current contemporary kind.
            You are correct, the Court would say that so-called assault rifles are the exact kind of arm protected by the Second Amendment.
            The 1792 Militia Act defines “well regulated” when the Congress specified the military standard of 1792 and later versions reflect new and changing military needs.
            In 1939 every type of arm we have now existed, only materials have changed from wood and steel to aluminum, titanium and composites.

        1. stopped any of them? #1 washington: sent a militia to collect taxes (whiskey rebellion) just as he’d done as a military commander under the articles of confederation with shay’s rebellion.
          #2 john adams: sedition acts prohibiting free speech
          #3 jefferson: unconstitutionally acquired the louisiana purchase lands for expediency.
          #4 madison: “until his experience as president with a weak national government during the War of 1812 caused Madison to appreciate the need for a strong central government . . . he began to support a national bank, a stronger navy, and a standing army.”

          and it continues…
          and will continue…

          1. How about the Marshals sending SWAT teams to crash in doors and arrest people for the high crime of defaulting on student loans? Can you say “Ruby Rige”, or “Waco”, or…

      1. I could be mistaken but it is my understanding that international treaties signed by the US will supersede the Constitution. So all Mr. O has to due is sign the UN treaty to limit small arms and we are all left defenseless.

        1. You ARE mistaken. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Treaties do not supersede the Constitution. Treaties have to be ratified by 2/3 of those senators present to vote, but they still do not take precedence over the Constitution. If terms of a treaty violate the Constitution, then those portions (or possibly the whole treaty) should be declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

          1. Thanks Dana! Very good response that I understand to be accurate. No foreign state or international body (UN) can override the U.S. Constitution or U.S. Law. Our representatives – elected or appointed – can sign treaties, but then Congress AND the President have to sign legislation changing our laws, and constitutional amendments would be referred to the states. Constitutional changes would require a constitutional convention.

            This decision hinges on Heller, and together they make any gun ban or “Australian Style” gun law a difficult task. It would be interesting to hear how this court might rule on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban since we probably will see another attempt at something like that within the next few years. People that fear, dislike, or distrust guns will look for alternate ways to limit the 2A, so we have to pay attention, but enforcing the 2A just got easier.

            1. I believe the case was Medellín v. Texas. SCOTUS’s “decision that held that even if an international treaty may constitute an international commitment, it is not binding domestic law unless Congress has enacted statutes implementing it or unless the treaty itself is ‘self-executing.’ Also, the Court held that decisions of the International Court of Justice [world court] are not binding domestic law and that, without authority from the United States Congress or the Constitution, the President of the United States lacks the power to enforce international treaties or decisions of the International Court of Justice.”

              By the way, as a side note. It was Ted Cruz that successfully won this case.

          2. Should and is are different. Also how long does it take to get a case to SCOTUS if ever. The government of WE THE PEOPLE has been sold out.

        2. I hold JD and NO Treaty supersede the U.S. Constitution. That is a common mistake made by many individuals, including Attorneys. Many Attorneys have taken the minimum (usually one class) on Constitutional Law in Law school. I on the other hand have studies Constitutional Law in-depth and know for a fact that Treaties do not supersede the U.S. Constitution. BO and the Commie/Left want the American people to believe this to be fact, but it is not, IT IS A LIE…PERIOD..!!! The Courts opinion lays to rest any low court opinions on the 2nd Amendment on the ownership of nearly all firearms. As I read the opinion, I would believe, it would pertain to fully automatic firearms as well. This will be the next court battle. The 2nd Amendment is clear on this issue…The Militias are to have any and all Arms carried by, and implemented by the U.S. Armed Forces in peace time or War.

          1. If you hold a JD and were studying so much in Constitutional law then you would know the proper title of the Constitution would be, “The Constitution of the United States” and not the US Constitution because there was no such thing as the United States at the time that the constitution was enacted therefore the proper name is and always has been “Constitution of the United States”.

            1. Right about the “name”, but remember the “united” states (plural) did not and was never intended to mean “a” thing other than “a republic” (“for which it stands” – the stars and stripes). It is common ignorance and illiteracy that we have to blame for the misapplication of terms and names to “unions” as if by naming THEM as “a thing” that removes the uniqueness of the parts. Keep powder dry! And remember what the militia clause is meant to protect – NOT the DC “USA”, but rather EACH STATE.

            2. USPat has given you a correct statement of the relative status of federal treaties and the US Constitution. Quibbling over the propriety of Constitution of the United States as opposed to the short hand US Constitution (which is faster to type), particularly in this forum, will only work to chase away the people who have the right answers. So… Ammoland non curate diminimis!
              PS the United States of America did exist before the US Constitution. After the revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation, which did not work too well. So the several states sent delegates to amend the Articles, but instead the delegates came up with the Constitution of the U.S. , which then had to be ratified by the 13 original states. Ok its Miller time!

            3. “Chase away the people with the right answers…”

              If a statement like that chases way, the people with the right answers” then what we’re talking about is relying on cowards to be the only reliable sources of information or THE information that we MUST know?

            4. Dear GregR,
              Not cowards just too busy to quibble about such minor things. Constitution of the United States and U.S. Constitution are properly interchangeable.

          2. You claim to be a lawyer and scholar but write like a third grader. You’re on the side of the angels though.

            1. I don’t think that I write like a third grader. Do you think that a third grader would even think in terms of ” properly interchangeable”, much less write “Constitution of the United States and U.S. Constitution are properly interchangeable.”?
              I, merely, don’t feel the need to write on an academic level in this kind of forum. If I did write on an academic level, in this forum, people would call me pompous, pretentious, and arrogant. I’m just fitting in.
              I could give you enough information to confirm my identity, but you or someone else might misuse it.

            2. And Gene, which third grader would be pompous, pretentious, and arrogant enough to turn “Lex non curate diminimis.” into Ammoland non curate diminimis as a play on words? How many third graders can even spell in Latin?

            3. Dear GR,
              It seems that I owe you an apology. Yes, things can be confusing. I stand corrected, sir!

            4. Wild Bill, as for your comment: How many third graders can even spell in Latin?”

              The answer would be I don’t know anybody that he’s being honest and what’s to communicate with you that speaks a dead language?

            5. Dear WB, No problem, apology accepted, I’ve been miffed for the same reason. Ammoland needs forum software that eliminates thread confusion.

      2. It is apparent that the California legislature has never heard of it, or, if they have, they are ignoring it as they continue to write new bills restricting 2A.

    Leave a Comment 160 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *