• 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think it’s very relevant to any questions of the Second Amendment.

        As if one guy with 280 guns isn’t proof enough of the absurdity of reading “well regulated milita” out of the equation.

        • eric@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To me, the “well-regulated milita” became a moot point in the 19th century when all of the state militias were unified into the National Guard and state defense forces. The term was never intended to include private militias, as evidenced by the fact that in 1886, the Supreme Court concluded that militias are not constitutionally protected and that states have the right to ban them altogether (Presser v Illinois). So any state can choose to have their own militia or they can choose to prohibit them all together. It clearly shows that militias are under the control of the states.

          The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens. I have no clue how we got to the point that we are currently in with 2A somehow protecting private ownership of assault rifles other than to blame corporate lobbying and institutional corruption.

          • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens.

            My take is that it was to enable the militia, especially minutemen, to, as the text says, “keep and bear arms” in their homes and not during actual battles.

            • eric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I agree that that is how it was intended, so in turn, the amendment provides for National guardsmen and state militias to be permitted to keep guns rather than all private citizens.

                • eric@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  What people? If you don’t think it’s referring to the people in a militia, you are completely ignoring the first part of the sentence. From congress.gov:

                  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

                  It doesn’t say all people. Considering the entire sentence, “people” implies nothing more than the people of a well regulated militia.

                  Also, Madison was very clear that the right to bear arms was for the militia in the federalist papers.

                  • JustAManOnAToilet@lemmy.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    It seems you have your mind made up, but you’re incorrect. The punctuation does a lot of work there separating the prefatory clause. The people are the same people covered in the first amendment.

          • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            How? It’s simple. Inducing fear and selling ‘protection’ is good money, and the NRA is here for it.

            • eric@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              That’s why, but how did they manage to pervert the amendment and get away with it? Before you answer, I understand it was ultimately the result of corruption, but why does no one talk about it from this specific angle? It seems so crystal clear to me that private gun ownership was never protected by the second amendment.

    • DigitalTraveler42@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s even crazier when it’s 200+ guns on Long Island, where general gun culture used to be next to invisible. Growing up there I had not seen a gun store until I moved to Florida, I’m sure they were there, just not all over or obvious, most people there used to not own guns, outside of all of the cops, it’s suburbia with little shitty areas and rustic areas sprinkled in between.

    • shalafi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      23
      ·
      1 year ago

      While that seems excessive to me, and I have 40+ guns, we don’t get to talk about “need” when discussing rights.

      Think on it folks. Gun ownership is the only right outlined in the Constitution where people talk about “need”. That’s a bad path to start down.

      (And for anyone wanting to argue to “rights” angle, the 2A exists and the courts uphold it as an individual right. Those are facts. We can discuss them, but ATM they are not open to debate as facts.)

      And just for fun, no I cannot maintain, shoot, gunsmith, whatever, that many. I’m basically at my personal limit for what I can actually use. Still want a lever gat though!

      • norbert@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m of the same mind really. I don’t even have an issue with someone owning 280 guns tbh. Collections are a thing and quality guns hold their value extremely well. Obviously someone under investigation for multiple homicides shouldn’t have full access to his 280 guns but I also kind of think they should let him sell them; they’re his and he’s entitled to adequate legal representation (which is expensive).

        "The defense’s motion was filed in response to a prosecution motion asking the court to allow the transfer of Heuermann’s guns and other firearm items to the Nassau County Police Department…the defense cited precedent in their motion, stating, ‘When property is no longer needed as evidence, the government must establish, in an appropriate proceeding, an independent interest to justify any further retention’ and reminded the court that prosecutors said that they no longer needed the property as evidence. "

        AFAIK his MO didn’t involve shooting so the guns aren’t that relevant, he’s not been convicted of anything, pigs just want the guns .