Mr. Justice. The milita to which the Second Amendment refers is the whole of the people. ALL of us. There is evidence aplenty in the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers and other quotations from the founders that clearly state this fact. Justice Scalia referred to this fact in his landmark D.C. v. Heller majority opinion.
Additionally, even the earlier SCOTUS precedent, U.S. v. Miller (1939) supported this fact. In addition to defining the types of weapons protected under the amendment (arms in common use that have a reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militi), the Court said this:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such [militia] forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” - UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) 307 U.S. 174
This, also, was cited in the Heller opinion.
Mr. Justice, there is no sane argument to be made that military-pattern semiautomatic rifles and their component parts don’t meet both prongs of the Miller test. This test exists to clarify what weapons are protected, and why.
All of this is included in the Heller precedent that establishes once and for all that the right is an individual right of the people, that the primary reason for guaranteeing the right is to enable them to respond with their own weapons in cases of emergency, and that the right exists independent of both the Constitution and any requirement for formal membership in any military organization.
Add to this the fact that all of these issues covered in both precedents were established well after the National Guard was created under Congress's Article 1 powers, which proves that your assertion that the National Guard is that to which the amendment refers holds no water.
You can't rewrite history, Mr. Justice. We won't allow you to get away with it.
People naturally don't trust Obama. He is an anti-constitutional statist, by his own admission (though not in so many words - he said that the Warren Court didn't go fare enough in "breaking free from constitutional constraints"). People do trust a close-to-home elected official to protect their natural, fundamental rights.
And this is bizarre, how...?
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation