On 2021-07-04 9:18 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:24:55 -0700, Alan Baker
> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>
>> On 2021-07-03 8:47 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 09:54:27 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <6qdudgtge21819bg31lgkvcgb2ipq25o2t@4ax.com>,
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:00:30 -0700, Alan Baker
>>>>> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-07-01 8:56 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:39:01 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
>>>>>>> <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2021 11:19 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:41:46 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
>>>>>>>>> <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2021 1:08 PM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2021 11:40 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:c04d4d91-8830-4206-9ae5-e0931373dcaen@googlegroups.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 11:01:59 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, really, 18 people can be stabbed to death and there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> major outcry. Three get shot and its a national disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guns make it a lot easier for people to kill people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Guns make it a lot easier to protect yourself. But, being a Canadian,
>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't believe in self defense because you're not allowed to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there! What exactly do you think THIS "good guy with a gun" should
>>>>>>>>>>> have done differently in order to still be alive?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-guns-self-defens
>>>>>>>>>>> e/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You never, never, never, NEVER pick up the perpetrator's weapon for
>>>>>>>>>> starters. Kick it away if you must. Insure your firearm remains
>>>>>>>>>> pointing
>>>>>>>>>> downward. When you hear police approaching, lay your firearm on the
>>>>>>>>>> ground, hands out in plain sight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like something a Gun Safety Class might cover.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, hey, they don't need no stinkin' classes in some States.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I completely agree, a person should take a firearm safety class.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shouldn't be forced to though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if they want to keep and bear arms. As part of a
>>>>>>> minimally-regulated (the course requirement being the only regulation)
>>>>>>> militia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People who don't /want/ to keep and bear arms need not take the class.
>>>>>>> And there are plenty of those about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are lots of situations where you are only required to do
>>>>>>> something if you want to do something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We even saw a training film on it. Didn't work as expected, though, as
>>>>>>> we were tax collectors and "paying taxes" is one of the few
>>>>>>> requirements that are /not/ conditional on trying to achieve some
>>>>>>> goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry. I'm no particular fan of the US 2nd, but the plain English
>>>>>> reading of the text does not place any restriction on the right to keep
>>>>>> and bear arms.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, then, you support the right of 2-year-olds to keep and bear arms?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not allowing that would clearly be a restriction, after all.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It states a particular reason for the importance of the right, but it
>>>>>> does NOT condition that right on the fulfillment of that reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it arguably does: it makes having a "well-regulated militia"
>>>>> the /reason/ for the right. No militia, no right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have the causation going the wrong way.
>>>>
>>>>> But at least you aren't claiming that "regulated" really means
>>>>> "equipped".
>>>>
>>>> The phrase "well-regulated militia" shows up in the Federalist papers.
>>>> In context, it appears to be mean well-trained (though perhaps
>>>> well-equipped is meant as well).
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the phrase is arguably an oxymoron in that a body of citizens
>>>> under arms that is well-regulated are regulars, not militia (but I
>>>> digress).
>>>
>>> The material at
>>> <https://home.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and-minute-men-of-1775.htm>
>>> gives some idea of what /Massachusetts/ thought "well-regulated"
>>> meant.
>>>
>>> I suspect that this came from Merrie Olde England and may even have
>>> been part of the Common Law tradition.
>>>
>>> And that other colonies may have had similar "regulations".
>>>
>>> And that /that/ is what the Constitution is talking about.
>>>
>>
>> What "regulated" means is completely moot.
>
> I would ask "if it's so moot, why is someone here claiming it really
> means 'equip'?", but then I remember just who that is ... and the
> result of that is:

I'm not responsible for anyone's spurious arguments.

>
> never mind
>
>> That clause is not restrictive by simple English.
>
> Ah, but is "simple English" the standard for interpreting the
> Constitution?

Yes.

>
> Or does the accepted meaning tend to ... change ... over time?

The meaning of the word isn't important: the nature of the clause in the
sentence is.

The sentence gives an important reason for the existence of the right,
but it does not condition the EXISTENCE of that right on that reason.

I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If the constitution include
this language:

"I well-educated populace, being necessary for the prosperity of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be
infringed."

Would that mean that one was not allowed to own or read books unless one
WAS well-educated?

Yes or no.

Remember: I think that there should be more limits on the ownership of
arms than the US has with the second amendment. I don't think that
people should be prevented from owning firearms entirely, but the
free-for-all that the second amendment laws has led to a culture where
far too many people get shot.

But English is English.

Stating one important reason why a thing should be allowed to exist
doesn't automatically make it that reason the ONLY reason, and in
particular, they way the 2A is written, it is clear that the right
exists independently of that reason.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:jmn3eg90ll43ob9imed83h0vgeacusdk4b@4ax.com:

> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:24:55 -0700, Alan Baker
> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>
>>On 2021-07-03 8:47 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 02 Jul 2021 09:54:27 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <6qdudgtge21819bg31lgkvcgb2ipq25o2t@4ax.com>,
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 10:00:30 -0700, Alan Baker
>>>>> <notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-07-01 8:56 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 11:39:01 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
>>>>>>> <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/30/2021 11:19 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 18:41:46 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
>>>>>>>>> <morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/27/2021 1:08 PM, Chrysi Cat wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2021 11:40 AM, Jibini Kula Tumbili
>>>>>>>>>>> Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:c04d4d91-8830-4206-9ae5-e0931373dcaen@googlegroup
>>>>>>>>>>>> s.com:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, June 17, 2021 at 11:01:59 AM UTC-6,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Paul S Person wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, really, 18 people can be stabbed to death and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no major outcry. Three get shot and its a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> national disaster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guns make it a lot easier for people to kill people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Guns make it a lot easier to protect yourself. But,
>>>>>>>>>>>> being a Canadian, you don't believe in self defense
>>>>>>>>>>>> because you're not allowed to.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi there! What exactly do you think THIS "good guy
>>>>>>>>>>> with a gun" should have done differently in order to
>>>>>>>>>>> still be alive?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <https://www.denverpost.com/2021/06/27/arvada-shooting-
>>>>>>>>>>> guns-self-defens e/>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You never, never, never, NEVER pick up the
>>>>>>>>>> perpetrator's weapon for starters. Kick it away if you
>>>>>>>>>> must. Insure your firearm remains pointing
>>>>>>>>>> downward. When you hear police approaching, lay your
>>>>>>>>>> firearm on the ground, hands out in plain sight.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sounds like something a Gun Safety Class might cover.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But, hey, they don't need no stinkin' classes in some
>>>>>>>>> States.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I completely agree, a person should take a firearm safety
>>>>>>>> class.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shouldn't be forced to though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if they want to keep and bear arms. As part of a
>>>>>>> minimally-regulated (the course requirement being the only
>>>>>>> regulation) militia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People who don't /want/ to keep and bear arms need not
>>>>>>> take the class. And there are plenty of those about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are lots of situations where you are only required
>>>>>>> to do something if you want to do something else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We even saw a training film on it. Didn't work as
>>>>>>> expected, though, as we were tax collectors and "paying
>>>>>>> taxes" is one of the few requirements that are /not/
>>>>>>> conditional on trying to achieve some goal.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sorry. I'm no particular fan of the US 2nd, but the
>>>>>> plain English reading of the text does not place any
>>>>>> restriction on the right to keep and bear arms.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, then, you support the right of 2-year-olds to keep and
>>>>> bear arms?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not allowing that would clearly be a restriction, after all.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It states a particular reason for the importance of the
>>>>>> right, but it does NOT condition that right on the
>>>>>> fulfillment of that reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, it arguably does: it makes having a
>>>>> "well-regulated militia" the /reason/ for the right. No
>>>>> militia, no right.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You have the causation going the wrong way.
>>>>
>>>>> But at least you aren't claiming that "regulated" really
>>>>> means "equipped".
>>>>
>>>> The phrase "well-regulated militia" shows up in the
>>>> Federalist papers. In context, it appears to be mean
>>>> well-trained (though perhaps well-equipped is meant as well).
>>>>
>>>> Of course, the phrase is arguably an oxymoron in that a body
>>>> of citizens under arms that is well-regulated are regulars,
>>>> not militia (but I digress).
>>>
>>> The material at
>>> <https://home.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and
>>> -minute-men-of-1775.htm> gives some idea of what
>>> /Massachusetts/ thought "well-regulated" meant.
>>>
>>> I suspect that this came from Merrie Olde England and may even
>>> have been part of the Common Law tradition.
>>>
>>> And that other colonies may have had similar "regulations".
>>>
>>> And that /that/ is what the Constitution is talking about.
>>>
>>
>>What "regulated" means is completely moot.
>
> I would ask "if it's so moot, why is someone here claiming it
> really means 'equip'?", but then I remember just who that is ...
> and the result of that is:
>
> never mind

Merely pointing out that you're wrong (and full of shit) in more
ways than one.
>
>>That clause is not restrictive by simple English.
>
> Ah, but is "simple English" the standard for interpreting the
> Constitution?

Yes. It is.
>
> Or does the accepted meaning tend to ... change ... over time?

Not so much with the current justices.

Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically that
the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual right, not
in any way connected to membership in any militia. It expains, in
detail, why that was the conclusion.

You will, of course, continue to hallucinate that is not the case,
and lie about it.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 10:14:46 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 20:46:18 -0700, Alan Baker
> <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:

> >There has always been an common law understanding that only adults have
> >full agency and thus the full exercise of their rights.

> >Try again.

> So, your position is that Common Law /overrides/ the Constitution? And
> so, by extension, all positive law?

> Interesting. I was under the impression that the opposite was the
> case.

You're quiite correct, but here Common Law is not overriding anything.

It's just filling in the unstated omissions.

John Savard

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:jmn3eg90ll43ob9im...@4ax.com:
> > On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:24:55 -0700, Alan Baker
> > <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
> >
> >>On 2021-07-03 8:47 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:

[snip]

> >>That clause is not restrictive by simple English.
> >
> > Ah, but is "simple English" the standard for interpreting the
> > Constitution?
> Yes. It is.
> >
> > Or does the accepted meaning tend to ... change ... over time?
> Not so much with the current justices.
>

I'd prefer they keep to a "textualism" that relies on the meaning of
words and phrases when the legislation or amendments were passed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism

> Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically that
> the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual right, not
> in any way connected to membership in any militia. It expains, in
> detail, why that was the conclusion.

Well before Heller, one could make the case that, given the more
expansive recognition of the RKBA in the great majority of state
constitutions, such rights could be guaranteed under the 9th
Amendment, were the 2nd never ratified.

[quote]

STATE CONSTITTIONS AND THE RIGHT
TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

Robert Dowlut

Janet A. Knoop

I. Introduction

Guarantees of individual liberties under federalism have two components: the
federal Constitution and state constitutions. The constitutions of thirty-nine (39)
states guarantee a right to arms. By comparison to the second amendment of the
United States Constitution the textual content of most state constitutions effects
broader rights. Presently only five states track the language of the second amendment. Since the Supreme Court has not specifically held that the second amendment applies
to the states, state guarantees on arms serve as an important bulwark against
infringement, for "it is the state courts at all levels, not the federal courts, that finally determine the overwhelming number of the vital issues of life, liberty and property
that trouble countless human beings of his Nation every year."

[/quote] - © 1982 Oklahoma City University Law Review.
Originally published as 7 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 177-241 (1982).

Quoted @ https://guncite.com/journals/dowrkba.html

With Heller, SCOTUS has extended 2A to the several states.
As a "right of Englishmen" it has roots at least as deep as
England's 1689 Bill of Rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

That may be more "on point" than a general reliance on
"English common law."

--
Kevin R

On Sunday, 4 July 2021 at 17:37:54 UTC+1, Alan Baker wrote:
> Remember: I think that there should be more limits on the ownership of
> arms than the US has with the second amendment. I don't think that
> people should be prevented from owning firearms entirely, but the
> free-for-all that the second amendment laws has led to a culture where
> far too many people get shot.
>
> But English is English.

Not!

On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:20:58 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> Well before Heller, one could make the case that, given the more
> expansive recognition of the RKBA in the great majority of state
> constitutions, such rights could be guaranteed under the 9th
> Amendment, were the 2nd never ratified.

There indeed is a reason why a right to bear arms could issue from
the 9th Amendment. However, the fact that most state constitutions
guaranteed such a right is not, in itself, decisive evidence that such
a right previously existed. After all, if those states felt a need to spell
it out explicitly, it might have been a new idea at the time.

However, there is additional evidence that I think would be more decisive.

Apparently English common law provided a right to bear arms. At least,
according to the most famous guide to English common law, Blackstone's
_Commentaries on the Laws of England_, a particular quote from which is
one gun-rights advocates, at least in Canada, have been fond of quoting.

None the less, I think that politically, it would have been very unrealistic
to expect the Supreme Court to derive something as big as a right to
bear arms from the 9th Amendment, so it's just as well it was explicit.

John Savard

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 10:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 10:14:46 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 20:46:18 -0700, Alan Baker
>> <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>
>> >There has always been an common law understanding that only adults have
>> >full agency and thus the full exercise of their rights.
>
>> >Try again.
>
>> So, your position is that Common Law /overrides/ the Constitution? And
>> so, by extension, all positive law?
>
>> Interesting. I was under the impression that the opposite was the
>> case.
>
>You're quiite correct, but here Common Law is not overriding anything.
>
>It's just filling in the unstated omissions.

Hey, at least your response is actually to the point, as opposed to a
mindless diversion.

There are no "unstated omissions". "shall not be infringed" is quite
clear. Nothing is omitted.

But considered as part of /regulating the militia/, age limits make
sense.

And the 2nd Amendment /clearly/ has "a well-regulated militia" as its
purpose in life. Says so in plain English.

There is a challenge in some state (California?) to the raising of the
age limit. It will be interesting to see if it is based on the Common
Law tradition -- or on Federal supremacy -- or on regulating the
"unorganized militia" defined in a law quoted here by another on
several occasions -- a law which, /itself/, is regulating the militia,
if only by defining it.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 16:47:32 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

<snippo>

>Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically that
>the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual right, not
>in any way connected to membership in any militia. It expains, in
>detail, why that was the conclusion.

And yet, IIRC, you /yourself/ have quoted a law, passed by Congress,
that defines AND THEREBY REGULATES the militia.

Or did you not notice that /every/ male not otherwise a serving member
of the military is clearly said to be in the militia, whether
organized or not?

Those of us who are male and not a serving member of the military are
/all/ in the militia, per the law I seem to recall you citing on
several occasions.

Well, not everyone /here/, of course; just those who happen to
citizens of the USA.

And, of course, any females in the National Guard are also included.

<snippo irrelevant bottalk>
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 12:20:55 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:jmn3eg90ll43ob9im...@4ax.com:
>> > On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:24:55 -0700, Alan Baker
>> > <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 2021-07-03 8:47 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> >>That clause is not restrictive by simple English.
>> >
>> > Ah, but is "simple English" the standard for interpreting the
>> > Constitution?
>> Yes. It is.
>> >
>> > Or does the accepted meaning tend to ... change ... over time?
>> Not so much with the current justices.
>>
>
>I'd prefer they keep to a "textualism" that relies on the meaning of
>words and phrases when the legislation or amendments were passed.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
>
>> Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically that
>> the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual right, not
>> in any way connected to membership in any militia. It expains, in
>> detail, why that was the conclusion.
>
>Well before Heller, one could make the case that, given the more
>expansive recognition of the RKBA in the great majority of state
>constitutions, such rights could be guaranteed under the 9th
>Amendment, were the 2nd never ratified.
>
>[quote]
>
>STATE CONSTITTIONS AND THE RIGHT
>TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
>
>Robert Dowlut
>
>Janet A. Knoop
>
>I. Introduction
>
>Guarantees of individual liberties under federalism have two components: the
>federal Constitution and state constitutions. The constitutions of thirty-nine (39)
>states guarantee a right to arms. By comparison to the second amendment of the
>United States Constitution the textual content of most state constitutions effects
>broader rights. Presently only five states track the language of the second amendment. Since the Supreme Court has not specifically held that the second amendment applies
>to the states, state guarantees on arms serve as an important bulwark against
>infringement, for "it is the state courts at all levels, not the federal courts, that finally determine the overwhelming number of the vital issues of life, liberty and property
>that trouble countless human beings of his Nation every year."
>
>[/quote] - © 1982 Oklahoma City University Law Review.
>Originally published as 7 Okla. City U. L. Rev. 177-241 (1982).
>
>Quoted @ https://guncite.com/journals/dowrkba.html
>
>With Heller, SCOTUS has extended 2A to the several states.
>As a "right of Englishmen" it has roots at least as deep as
>England's 1689 Bill of Rights.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
>
>That may be more "on point" than a general reliance on
>"English common law."

The relevant provision appears to be:

Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their
conditions and as allowed by law;

but this was in reaction to one of James II's policies:

by causing Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists
were both armed and employed contrary to law;

so it isn't as biased as it seems.

Note, however, the final condition: as allowed by law.

Ours is much broader: "shall not be infringed".
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
wrote:

>On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:20:58 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
>
>> Well before Heller, one could make the case that, given the more
>> expansive recognition of the RKBA in the great majority of state
>> constitutions, such rights could be guaranteed under the 9th
>> Amendment, were the 2nd never ratified.
>
>There indeed is a reason why a right to bear arms could issue from
>the 9th Amendment. However, the fact that most state constitutions
>guaranteed such a right is not, in itself, decisive evidence that such
>a right previously existed. After all, if those states felt a need to spell
>it out explicitly, it might have been a new idea at the time.

The material at
<https://home.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and-minute-men-of-1775.htm>
gives some idea of what /Massachusetts/ thought "well-regulated"
meant.

So, no, it wasn't "a new idea at the time". At least, not in
Massachusetts, and probably not in (at least some of) the other
Colonies either.

>However, there is additional evidence that I think would be more decisive.
>
>Apparently English common law provided a right to bear arms. At least,
>according to the most famous guide to English common law, Blackstone's
>_Commentaries on the Laws of England_, a particular quote from which is
>one gun-rights advocates, at least in Canada, have been fond of quoting.
>
>None the less, I think that politically, it would have been very unrealistic
>to expect the Supreme Court to derive something as big as a right to
>bear arms from the 9th Amendment, so it's just as well it was explicit.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:08:24 PM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 14:44:16 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:20:58 PM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:
> >
> >> Well before Heller, one could make the case that, given the more
> >> expansive recognition of the RKBA in the great majority of state
> >> constitutions, such rights could be guaranteed under the 9th
> >> Amendment, were the 2nd never ratified.
> >
> >There indeed is a reason why a right to bear arms could issue from
> >the 9th Amendment. However, the fact that most state constitutions
> >guaranteed such a right is not, in itself, decisive evidence that such
> >a right previously existed. After all, if those states felt a need to spell
> >it out explicitly, it might have been a new idea at the time.
> The material at
> <https://home.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and-minute-men-of-1775.htm>
> gives some idea of what /Massachusetts/ thought "well-regulated"
> meant.
> So, no, it wasn't "a new idea at the time". At least, not in
> Massachusetts, and probably not in (at least some of) the other
> Colonies either.
> >However, there is additional evidence that I think would be more decisive.
> >
> >Apparently English common law provided a right to bear arms. At least,
> >according to the most famous guide to English common law, Blackstone's
> >_Commentaries on the Laws of England_, a particular quote from which is
> >one gun-rights advocates, at least in Canada, have been fond of quoting.
> >
> >None the less, I think that politically, it would have been very unrealistic
> >to expect the Supreme Court to derive something as big as a right to
> >bear arms from the 9th Amendment, so it's just as well it was explicit.
> --

Can I sum up this discussion as "How many lawyers can dance on an old sheet of paper?"

The idea is to set up an idea and then find something, somewhere that you claim supports it.

John

On 2021-07-05 8:54 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Jul 2021 10:49:48 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 10:14:46 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 20:46:18 -0700, Alan Baker
>>> <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>>
>>>> There has always been an common law understanding that only adults have
>>>> full agency and thus the full exercise of their rights.
>>
>>>> Try again.
>>
>>> So, your position is that Common Law /overrides/ the Constitution? And
>>> so, by extension, all positive law?
>>
>>> Interesting. I was under the impression that the opposite was the
>>> case.
>>
>> You're quiite correct, but here Common Law is not overriding anything.
>>
>> It's just filling in the unstated omissions.
>
> Hey, at least your response is actually to the point, as opposed to a
> mindless diversion.
>
> There are no "unstated omissions". "shall not be infringed" is quite
> clear. Nothing is omitted.
>
> But considered as part of /regulating the militia/, age limits make
> sense.

So that would be something unstated.

>
> And the 2nd Amendment /clearly/ has "a well-regulated militia" as its
> purpose in life. Says so in plain English.

No. It says that is ONE very important purpose.

>
> There is a challenge in some state (California?) to the raising of the
> age limit. It will be interesting to see if it is based on the Common
> Law tradition -- or on Federal supremacy -- or on regulating the
> "unorganized militia" defined in a law quoted here by another on
> several occasions -- a law which, /itself/, is regulating the militia,
> if only by defining it.
>

On 2021-07-05 8:59 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 16:47:32 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snippo>
>
>> Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically that
>> the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual right, not
>> in any way connected to membership in any militia. It expains, in
>> detail, why that was the conclusion.
>
> And yet, IIRC, you /yourself/ have quoted a law, passed by Congress,
> that defines AND THEREBY REGULATES the militia.

It regulates the militia...

....but doesn't affect a right the pre-dates the constitution in any way.

>
> Or did you not notice that /every/ male not otherwise a serving member
> of the military is clearly said to be in the militia, whether
> organized or not?
>
> Those of us who are male and not a serving member of the military are
> /all/ in the militia, per the law I seem to recall you citing on
> several occasions.
>
> Well, not everyone /here/, of course; just those who happen to
> citizens of the USA.
>
> And, of course, any females in the National Guard are also included.
>
> <snippo irrelevant bottalk>
>

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:5dfcfc5f-f082-4036-8651-5833049a7662n@googlegroups.com:

> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:47:38 PM UTC-4, Ninapenda Jibini
> wrote:
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:jmn3eg90ll43ob9im...@4ax.com:
>> > On Sat, 3 Jul 2021 13:24:55 -0700, Alan Baker
>> > <notony...@no.no.no.no> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On 2021-07-03 8:47 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> >>That clause is not restrictive by simple English.
>> >
>> > Ah, but is "simple English" the standard for interpreting the
>> > Constitution?
>> Yes. It is.
>> >
>> > Or does the accepted meaning tend to ... change ... over
>> > time?
>> Not so much with the current justices.
>>
>
> I'd prefer they keep to a "textualism" that relies on the
> meaning of words and phrases when the legislation or amendments
> were passed.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
>
>> Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically
>> that the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual
>> right, not in any way connected to membership in any militia.
>> It expains, in detail, why that was the conclusion.
>
> Well before Heller,

Fortunately, we are not longer before Heller.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Paul S Person <psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:6ra6egpc4codf48k1kejkts510820ud93c@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 16:47:32 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snippo>
>
>>Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically that
>>the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual right,
>>not in any way connected to membership in any militia. It
>>expains, in detail, why that was the conclusion.
>
> And yet, IIRC, you /yourself/ have quoted a law, passed by
> Congress, that defines AND THEREBY REGULATES the militia.

In a far, far broader fashion that fascist gun grabbers like you
would like.

And, again, Heller specificall says that the right to keep and bear
arms is not, in any way, connected to memberhsip in any militia.

You *lost*. Get over it.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

> John Halpenny
>
> Can I sum up this discussion as "How many lawyers can dance on an old sheet of paper?"
>
> The idea is to set up an idea and then find something, somewhere that you claim supports it.

I think that perfectly describes the anti-gun fundies, who contort themselves into rhetorical
pretzels while claiming this is what the Found Fathers “really meant”, despite all their writings
on the subject clearly meaning something else.

On 7/2/2021 11:00 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> Actually, it arguably does: it makes having a "well-regulated militia"
> the/reason/ for the right. No militia, no right.

Not in any way, shape, or form.

On 7/3/2021 9:09 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
> of course there is an age limit, because there was an age limit for
> membership in the militia, and the 2nd Amendment is about the militia

Not in any way, shape, or form.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 18:43:43 -0500, "Jay E. Morris"
<morrisj@epsilon3.comcon> wrote:

>On 7/2/2021 11:00 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> Actually, it arguably does: it makes having a "well-regulated militia"
>> the/reason/ for the right. No militia, no right.
>
>Not in any way, shape, or form.

It amazes me that people who claim to be liberals can accept that "the
people" means "a well regulated militia", without ever once thinking
that if that is the case that well regulated militia is going to make
their woke asses an holy Hell, and since they aren't members of it
there isn't squat they can do about it.

On 2021-07-05 4:46 p.m., Jay E. Morris wrote:
> On 7/3/2021 9:09 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> of course there is an age limit, because there was an age limit for
>> membership in the militia, and the 2nd Amendment is about the militia
>
> Not in any way, shape, or form.
>

I really don't get it.

I think that 2A as written is pretty much nuts...

....but I can read English.

On 2021-07-05 9:59 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 16:47:32 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snippo>
>
>> Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically that
>> the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual right, not
>> in any way connected to membership in any militia. It expains, in
>> detail, why that was the conclusion.
>
> And yet, IIRC, you /yourself/ have quoted a law, passed by Congress,
> that defines AND THEREBY REGULATES the militia.
>

That's not what "regulated" means in the context of second amendment of
the American constitution. There it means "able to load and fire their
weapons in good order">

David Johnston <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:sc09uk$dus$1@gioia.aioe.org:

> On 2021-07-05 9:59 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 16:47:32 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snippo>
>>
>>> Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically
>>> that the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual
>>> right, not in any way connected to membership in any militia.
>>> It expains, in detail, why that was the conclusion.
>>
>> And yet, IIRC, you /yourself/ have quoted a law, passed by
>> Congress, that defines AND THEREBY REGULATES the militia.
>>
>
> That's not what "regulated" means in the context of second
> amendment of the American constitution. There it means "able to
> load and fire their weapons in good order">
>
That's been explained to Paul multiple times. He's too mentally
damaged by the programming to accept it.

He also still believes that membership in a militia is in some way
relevant to the right to keep and bear arms, despite me actually
quoting the part of Heller that says it's not.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

"edstas...@gmail.com" <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote in
news:68204b61-726b-4cdf-bef6-6ca36342841dn@googlegroups.com:

>> John Halpenny
>>
>> Can I sum up this discussion as "How many lawyers can dance on
>> an old she
> et of paper?"
>>
>> The idea is to set up an idea and then find something,
>> somewhere that you
> claim supports it.
>
> I think that perfectly describes the anti-gun fundies, who
> contort themselves into rhetorical pretzels while claiming this
> is what the Found Fathers “really meant”, despite all their
> writings on the subject clearly meaning something else.

If you get one that's rational enough to actually understand the
words (rare), and you explain to them why their current talking
point is wrong, with documentation to prove it, they will simply
move to the next talking about. And when you debunk that one, with
documentation, they'll move on to the next, and so on.

They've got somewhere between 5 and 10 talking points, and when
they run out, they circle back to the first and start the cycle all
over.

The degree of programming required to believe that guns are the
problem causes so much mental damage that they're literally not
capable of rational thought.

What caused your mental damaqe, I don't know.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 17:21:23 -0700, Alan Baker
<notonyourlife@no.no.no.no> wrote:

>On 2021-07-05 4:46 p.m., Jay E. Morris wrote:
>> On 7/3/2021 9:09 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> of course there is an age limit, because there was an age limit for
>>> membership in the militia, and the 2nd Amendment is about the militia
>>
>> Not in any way, shape, or form.
>>
>
>I really don't get it.
>
>I think that 2A as written is pretty much nuts...
>
>...but I can read English.

In these situations, depending on exactly what you are referring to,
it may be useful to consider "deeply held religious belief" as a
possible explanation.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 19:00:06 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2021-07-05 9:59 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jul 2021 16:47:32 GMT, Ninapenda Jibini
>> <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snippo>
>>
>>> Heller is very specific in the ruling. It says specifically that
>>> the 2nd amendment right "of the people" is an individual right, not
>>> in any way connected to membership in any militia. It expains, in
>>> detail, why that was the conclusion.
>>
>> And yet, IIRC, you /yourself/ have quoted a law, passed by Congress,
>> that defines AND THEREBY REGULATES the militia.
>>
>
>That's not what "regulated" means in the context of second amendment of
>the American constitution. There it means "able to load and fire their
>weapons in good order">

Sorry.

Examination of the Massachusetts regulations for the militia at
<https://home.nps.gov/mima/learn/historyculture/the-militia-and-minute-men-of-1775.htm>
should make it clear that it means a /lot/ more than that.

-- every male of proper age is a member
-- attendence at drills is mandatory
-- purchase of either of two specified weapons is mandatory
-- maintaing a basic load is mandatory

/That/ was what the Framers were used to. /That/ is what they wanted
to ensure continued, at the State level, to provide a defense against
Federal encroachments on the people's freedom.

The "unorganized" militia is not particularly well-regulated -- but
the /organized/ militia, that is, the National Guard (including at
least the Naval units) are /very/ organized -- it is, in fact, as
organized as the US Army (Navy, Marines, Air Force, Space Force)
itself, having the same UCMJ and the same service-specific regulations
and manuals. And traditions, which are very important in a military
organization, even a well-regulated militia.

And, since all male citizens (residents?) of the USA not otherwise
serving in the military are, within the ages specified, /in/ that
militia, the only effect of the Supreme Court ruling is to include
females in the group having the right specified.

Why someone who insists that the 2nd Amendment has /nothing to do with
the militia/ would /quote a law defining the militia/ I have no idea.

But perhaps I am confusing two different people here ...
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."