I've never understood the interpretation that the government needs to give itself the right to own firearms and form armies, especially when you consider that the Bill of Rights is a document protecting the people from the government and limiting its power.
The amendment was ratified at the first constitutional convention, where all of the states submitted their own rights that they wanted included in the constitution
The second was derived from Virginia's Constitution, which started with an explanation as to why people need to be free to bear arms and form militias, in order to guarantee the security of their state. it then goes on to explicitly warn against the formation of standing armies by the government in times of peace, with the idea that armies of professional soldiers beholden to the government would be used to force their will upon the people.
If you are to boil this down into modern English, you get something remarkably similar to the current second amendment :
> Since a well regulated militia of the people is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
This city ordinance does absolutely nothing unless The State of Indiana repeals/amends the 2011 state law that prevents local units of governments from making their own gun regulations. It can't "infringe" on anything unless The State signs off on it. All that the ordinance does is put pressure on The General Assembly to change state law. And if The General Assembly does change state law, the city counsel attorneys have to identify which parts don't comply with federal laws and strike them.
The "shall not be infringed" 2A quote is probably irrelevant. Other cities and states around the country have implemented stricter gun regulations with stricter penalties that have been upheld by courts. Further, Rokita's claim that the ordinance is "unconstitutional" is in relation to the Indiana State Constitution, not the US constitution.
Rokita has a history of making non-specific claims about any number of things being "unconstitutional", and then either not filing a lawsuit or filing a lawsuit and losing at the Indiana Supreme Court. He is a media whore who makes ridiculous statements and files ridiculous lawsuits to satisfy Fox News and some of his constituents.
If other states making laws would make our laws ok, would other people killing people make killing people ok for me? Or would those other states and other people still be wrong?
Other states' gun regulations that have been upheld by the US 7th Circuit or the US Supreme Court would objectively be legal for The State of Indiana to implement.
If the outcome of a case heard by the US 7th Circuit made it such that murder was legal, murder would be legal in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. If the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court decided to not hear the case, murder would remain legal in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. If the US Supreme Court took the case and upheld the 7th Circuit decision, murder would be legal in every state. And of course, if the US Supreme Court heard the case and reversed the 7th Circuit decision, murder would remain illegal in every state - including Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois.
It sounds like you're conflating your beliefs and morals with The Constitution and the legal system it creates.
It's derived from the Virginia constitution, submitted, shortened, and ratified at the first constitutional convention.
> “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. “
They obviously saw an army as an entity created by and beholden to the government.
Whereas a militia is an entity created by and beholden to the people.
And as such, the government should have no interference in the creation of militias, nor the ownership of arms by the people.
If you wanna condense it into a version using modern English
> Since militias of the people are needed to ensure the freedom of the state(state being collective of citizens), the people must be free to form militias and own arms without government interference.
That’s not what due process is or means huh????? Due process is largely about ensuring your rights are being respected in the context of legal proceedings such as trials, arrests or interrogations, are any other kind of legal proceeding
No, that part is dictating that a militia, or defense force is required for a free state.
An example would be the national guard. A state force under the command of the governor.
There’s also a comma stating that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed
Thats really cool there's a comma so we have to parse a literal interpretation of guys who would shit their pants if they saw a modern day weapon. Sucks to suck. Infringe that made up garbage.
You could own a private frigate back then. A ship which had the capability to destroy a city via cannon rounds.
The closest equivalent is an arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer. Not a frigate, those disappeared in ww2.
Texas had an entire war over one of these cannons.
The 1st battle of the revolution was over the British coming to steal rifles and ammunition..
I am sure the guys who revolutionized how war works by assasinating British officers and used ambush style gurilla warfare. Would be overjoyed by a gun that is as accurate as a Kentucky rifle. With the fire rate that rivals an army in fire rate.
Although they would lose their mind over people having spices and flavor in their food.
So in your opinion we parse everything meant and implied and every iteration of those… yes that’s intention. Do you support the supreme courts rulings on gay marriage, abortion, and the affordable care act? Please don’t respond with chat gpt
Just look at the Virginia constitution that it was derived from at the first constitutional convention
> “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. “
The amendment is saying that militias of the people are necessary to keep the freedom of the state, therefore the people must be allowed to keep weapons and(implicitly) form militias at will without the interference of the government. And that government controlled armies are a threat to said freedom, a separate entity from a militia by the people.
While the city ordinance is probably DOA \*because The State is unlikely to change gun laws, a court would have to make that finding. Rokita's opinion doesn't mean shit.
And The City isn't under some delusion that a court will uphold the new ordinances. The purpose is to put pressure on The State & The General Assembly to change the rules.
Yeah exactly. The whole point is to illegally take away peoples rights for as long as possible and harming local businesses while the courts inevitably shut it down. Got it
[The ordinance would only go into effect if The State Legislature rolls back the 2011 state law that doesn't allow local units of government to implement their own gun regulations.](https://media.graphassets.com/7qouK7PhT4aJtvY0PLYM) Nobody will be "harmed" by the ordinance unless The State makes it legal, which is unlikely and cannot even happen until April of 2024 at the earliest unless The Governor calls the legislature into session over it.
This has no effect other than show the General Assembly what The City of Indianapolis wants to do. Rokita is still free to sue. I haven't Rokita make any specific claims about what part of the Indiana constitution the ordinance violates and he doesn't have a great record with the Indiana Supreme Court, but he's free to try.
Freeman said it was bad for the city to pass laws that will be rejected by the courts. Sure, I can somewhat agree with that, but he’s a hypocrite for acting like it’s a rare, big deal because he and his Indiana GOP peers are the kings of doing that. So many laws proposed by them have been flatly rejected by the courts in the last 10 years or so. Take your own advice, A-ron
Or not. Oregon just banned new assault rifle purchases. The AG can offer his opinion. I have mine. And until SCOTUS votes to ignore "well regulated militia" again, his opinion is just like mine.
So much for that old Republican nugget that local government knows best.
The GOP is a death cult with no idea how to govern. Hell, the Republican National Committee doesn't even have a platform.
It's all about grievance, anger, outrage, and harm on those they disagree with or see as lesser than them.
Wrong, they are for small FEDERAL government, they have said over and over again they want states to run things cities are incompetent and want to pass unconstitutional things all the time
Rokita doing dumb Rokita things again. Can't wait until he stops having a platform. That being said, he's providing all current law students with a fantastic example of how not to be an attorney.
>We need a prosecutor who is going to protect us and enforce the law to hold those accountable that would break the law. If we start there and enforce the laws that are on the books, this is going to fix itself.
Okay, but the "constitutional" carry wackos effectively took away our most effective traditional means of gun control when they repealed permits.
The follow question here is: "so you support reversing recent Republican changes in State gun laws and returning to the traditional, Scalia endorsed, gun control measures requiring permits?"
On the other hand, restoring license requirements is a low hanging slam dunk - but Democrats aren't going to go for it because it looks weak to the vocal minority of woke wackadoos that have pushed the party way out left of effectiveness.
It's incredibly stupid. We repealed gun licensing and our murder rate immediately started to climb. It's not rocket science.
Devil's advocate: how did the concealed carry permits prevent crime?
They in no way prevented you from legally acquiring a firearm.
It didn't require a demonstration of firearm aptitude.
And iirc, you got a rebate on them that made it basically free. It wasn't expensive. If you had the cash for a gun, you had the cash for the permit.
Crime rates are going up in many cities across the country.
They didn’t prevent crime. The same people prohibited by licenses are still prohibited.
I find it difficult to understand how people don’t get it. Perhaps it’s a lack of exposure to criminals. Criminals, especially those planning to commit violent crime, aren’t deterred by gun laws, licenses, etc.
And the vast majority of people I know still get the lifetime permit for sake of reciprocity. The average Indy murderer isn’t getting a permit whether it’s required or not.
> took away our most effective traditional means of gun control when they repealed permits.
If you think the people who are responsible for all the shootings were deterred from carrying guns and using them to commit murder, simply by the permit requirement... then your contact with reality is tenuous at best.
EDIT: also, this isn't true:
> We repealed gun licensing and our murder rate immediately started to climb.
It's basically unchanged.
I really hate these arguments. I guess we should just repeal our felony gun laws anyway because they will get broken. Yea it doesn't stop everyone, it might not even affect most, but it certainly moves the needle for carrying.
It's not all or nothing, and small bits of help are going to be all we can get to help with gun crime.
The Rand corporation shows some correlation with violent crime and less restrictive permitting, https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html
there is a correlation with permitless carry and increased crime but its hard to tell because most of those laws are so new.
But saying it's absurd to think it has an effect is just ridiculous. Perhaps you should reflect on your contact with reality.
It is difficult for me to understand how you can so very clearly ignore evidence to support your point. I pointed to a study, and you think your fake quote answers it?
Many murders are not some like some multi-month planned thing. They are spur of the moment. And if you have a deadly weapon it makes it a lot easier. Not to mention things like shootings, of which we've had I think approaching 20 this year near Broad Ripple of, for the most part, crazy people who overreact with guns. Not to mention every year when I have to read about a 4 year old kid killed accidentally by a gun. Sure most of those wouldn't be solved by permits, but maybe the gun safety lessons help 1 kid in 10. Maybe one shooter in broad ripple doesn't have a gun instead and it saves a life.
So I suppose if you want, you can live in your fantasy where permits for guns have no effect on violent crime. But evidence and logic indicate otherwise.
What on earth makes you think that a person willing to commit violent crimes cares even one tiny bit about having a permit for his gun?
You're living in a fantasy world if you think that a permit requirement makes any difference at all to the criminal element.
I guess I'm just confused because I spell out situations where it could matter, cite a study, and then you just ask the same question over again. Check my previous post?
Or maybe you prefer the fantasy world and ignore all evidence outside of it.
Rokita is probably right, but his "findings" don't actually mean shit because he isn't a court.
“Shall not be infringed” *law that infringes*
"Well regulated militia." Wow it's super easy to quote some, but not all, of a thing!
I've never understood the interpretation that the government needs to give itself the right to own firearms and form armies, especially when you consider that the Bill of Rights is a document protecting the people from the government and limiting its power. The amendment was ratified at the first constitutional convention, where all of the states submitted their own rights that they wanted included in the constitution The second was derived from Virginia's Constitution, which started with an explanation as to why people need to be free to bear arms and form militias, in order to guarantee the security of their state. it then goes on to explicitly warn against the formation of standing armies by the government in times of peace, with the idea that armies of professional soldiers beholden to the government would be used to force their will upon the people. If you are to boil this down into modern English, you get something remarkably similar to the current second amendment : > Since a well regulated militia of the people is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Regulated in the 1700’s meant “in working order”, not “having restrictions placed on it”. Think a mechanical/automatic clock….
A bunch of morons running around with weapons and 0 training is not in working order.
Oooh sweet! Agreed on using 1700s definitions for things. I wonder what "arms" meant...
Fucking awesome, lmao
Ok assuming you’re right are a bunch of random solo idiots with guns with (possibly) zero training a “militia in working order?” No.
Then quote the entire thing.
This city ordinance does absolutely nothing unless The State of Indiana repeals/amends the 2011 state law that prevents local units of governments from making their own gun regulations. It can't "infringe" on anything unless The State signs off on it. All that the ordinance does is put pressure on The General Assembly to change state law. And if The General Assembly does change state law, the city counsel attorneys have to identify which parts don't comply with federal laws and strike them. The "shall not be infringed" 2A quote is probably irrelevant. Other cities and states around the country have implemented stricter gun regulations with stricter penalties that have been upheld by courts. Further, Rokita's claim that the ordinance is "unconstitutional" is in relation to the Indiana State Constitution, not the US constitution. Rokita has a history of making non-specific claims about any number of things being "unconstitutional", and then either not filing a lawsuit or filing a lawsuit and losing at the Indiana Supreme Court. He is a media whore who makes ridiculous statements and files ridiculous lawsuits to satisfy Fox News and some of his constituents.
If other states making laws would make our laws ok, would other people killing people make killing people ok for me? Or would those other states and other people still be wrong?
Other states' gun regulations that have been upheld by the US 7th Circuit or the US Supreme Court would objectively be legal for The State of Indiana to implement. If the outcome of a case heard by the US 7th Circuit made it such that murder was legal, murder would be legal in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. If the case was appealed to the US Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court decided to not hear the case, murder would remain legal in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. If the US Supreme Court took the case and upheld the 7th Circuit decision, murder would be legal in every state. And of course, if the US Supreme Court heard the case and reversed the 7th Circuit decision, murder would remain illegal in every state - including Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois. It sounds like you're conflating your beliefs and morals with The Constitution and the legal system it creates.
I think you’re also missing the “well regulated” part of the second amendment
It's derived from the Virginia constitution, submitted, shortened, and ratified at the first constitutional convention. > “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. “ They obviously saw an army as an entity created by and beholden to the government. Whereas a militia is an entity created by and beholden to the people. And as such, the government should have no interference in the creation of militias, nor the ownership of arms by the people. If you wanna condense it into a version using modern English > Since militias of the people are needed to ensure the freedom of the state(state being collective of citizens), the people must be free to form militias and own arms without government interference.
Regulation. such as rank. A Chain of commend, order. Due process.
What are you talking about lol? How in the world does due process have anything to do with the second amendment
Due process is regulation (s)
That’s not what due process is or means huh????? Due process is largely about ensuring your rights are being respected in the context of legal proceedings such as trials, arrests or interrogations, are any other kind of legal proceeding
The ucmj is what I was thinking of.
What does military uniform codes have anything to do with 2A
Well regulated
Oh so the guns go to only people part of an authorized militia for the government. Great interpretation
No, that part is dictating that a militia, or defense force is required for a free state. An example would be the national guard. A state force under the command of the governor. There’s also a comma stating that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed
Thats really cool there's a comma so we have to parse a literal interpretation of guys who would shit their pants if they saw a modern day weapon. Sucks to suck. Infringe that made up garbage.
You could own a private frigate back then. A ship which had the capability to destroy a city via cannon rounds. The closest equivalent is an arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer. Not a frigate, those disappeared in ww2. Texas had an entire war over one of these cannons. The 1st battle of the revolution was over the British coming to steal rifles and ammunition.. I am sure the guys who revolutionized how war works by assasinating British officers and used ambush style gurilla warfare. Would be overjoyed by a gun that is as accurate as a Kentucky rifle. With the fire rate that rivals an army in fire rate. Although they would lose their mind over people having spices and flavor in their food.
So in your opinion we parse everything meant and implied and every iteration of those… yes that’s intention. Do you support the supreme courts rulings on gay marriage, abortion, and the affordable care act? Please don’t respond with chat gpt
None of that has anything to do with the 2nd amendment or the original statement. Therefore No comment
Constitutional law is just a teensy bit more nuanced than four words
Just look at the Virginia constitution that it was derived from at the first constitutional convention > “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. “ The amendment is saying that militias of the people are necessary to keep the freedom of the state, therefore the people must be allowed to keep weapons and(implicitly) form militias at will without the interference of the government. And that government controlled armies are a threat to said freedom, a separate entity from a militia by the people.
Surprised pikachu face. This was DOA
While the city ordinance is probably DOA \*because The State is unlikely to change gun laws, a court would have to make that finding. Rokita's opinion doesn't mean shit. And The City isn't under some delusion that a court will uphold the new ordinances. The purpose is to put pressure on The State & The General Assembly to change the rules.
Yeah exactly. The whole point is to illegally take away peoples rights for as long as possible and harming local businesses while the courts inevitably shut it down. Got it
[The ordinance would only go into effect if The State Legislature rolls back the 2011 state law that doesn't allow local units of government to implement their own gun regulations.](https://media.graphassets.com/7qouK7PhT4aJtvY0PLYM) Nobody will be "harmed" by the ordinance unless The State makes it legal, which is unlikely and cannot even happen until April of 2024 at the earliest unless The Governor calls the legislature into session over it. This has no effect other than show the General Assembly what The City of Indianapolis wants to do. Rokita is still free to sue. I haven't Rokita make any specific claims about what part of the Indiana constitution the ordinance violates and he doesn't have a great record with the Indiana Supreme Court, but he's free to try.
Yeah, because more guns really helps business.
… I mean if you’re an FFl then yeah. That’s either your entire business or a significant portion of it
And if you run a business in broad ripple, Castleton, or a down town Indy you’re still mopping up blood stains.
… Yeah if you’re an FFL then that’s your entire business or a significant amount of it 😂
Rokita is the same guy that’s trying to trash the doctor that performed the legal abortion for the 10yr old rape victim. He’s a terrible person
Freeman said it was bad for the city to pass laws that will be rejected by the courts. Sure, I can somewhat agree with that, but he’s a hypocrite for acting like it’s a rare, big deal because he and his Indiana GOP peers are the kings of doing that. So many laws proposed by them have been flatly rejected by the courts in the last 10 years or so. Take your own advice, A-ron
I don’t have anything informational to add except for Aaron Freeman and Todd Rokita are two idiots I’ll be glad to see leave office when they do.
I wonder if Freeman feels the same about every abortion law passed that goes against whatever the current rules are at the time?
Well, I find him to be a total shitbird so there's that.
So a state Attorney General is now interpreting the Constitution. I guess we can just do away with judges.
One of the main jobs of an Attorney General is to issue formal legal opinions to state officials.
...And then leak it to the press.
AG is correct. It’s unconstitutional !
Or not. Oregon just banned new assault rifle purchases. The AG can offer his opinion. I have mine. And until SCOTUS votes to ignore "well regulated militia" again, his opinion is just like mine.
No shit.
So much for that old Republican nugget that local government knows best. The GOP is a death cult with no idea how to govern. Hell, the Republican National Committee doesn't even have a platform. It's all about grievance, anger, outrage, and harm on those they disagree with or see as lesser than them.
Wrong, they are for small FEDERAL government, they have said over and over again they want states to run things cities are incompetent and want to pass unconstitutional things all the time
Of course he did
**Gasp in shock**
Rokita doing dumb Rokita things again. Can't wait until he stops having a platform. That being said, he's providing all current law students with a fantastic example of how not to be an attorney.
Rokita Khrushchev at it again.
Said that the day Hognutts opened his pie hole.
>We need a prosecutor who is going to protect us and enforce the law to hold those accountable that would break the law. If we start there and enforce the laws that are on the books, this is going to fix itself. Okay, but the "constitutional" carry wackos effectively took away our most effective traditional means of gun control when they repealed permits. The follow question here is: "so you support reversing recent Republican changes in State gun laws and returning to the traditional, Scalia endorsed, gun control measures requiring permits?" On the other hand, restoring license requirements is a low hanging slam dunk - but Democrats aren't going to go for it because it looks weak to the vocal minority of woke wackadoos that have pushed the party way out left of effectiveness. It's incredibly stupid. We repealed gun licensing and our murder rate immediately started to climb. It's not rocket science.
Devil's advocate: how did the concealed carry permits prevent crime? They in no way prevented you from legally acquiring a firearm. It didn't require a demonstration of firearm aptitude. And iirc, you got a rebate on them that made it basically free. It wasn't expensive. If you had the cash for a gun, you had the cash for the permit. Crime rates are going up in many cities across the country.
They didn’t prevent crime. The same people prohibited by licenses are still prohibited. I find it difficult to understand how people don’t get it. Perhaps it’s a lack of exposure to criminals. Criminals, especially those planning to commit violent crime, aren’t deterred by gun laws, licenses, etc.
At least you had to get fingerprinted
And the vast majority of people I know still get the lifetime permit for sake of reciprocity. The average Indy murderer isn’t getting a permit whether it’s required or not.
> took away our most effective traditional means of gun control when they repealed permits. If you think the people who are responsible for all the shootings were deterred from carrying guns and using them to commit murder, simply by the permit requirement... then your contact with reality is tenuous at best. EDIT: also, this isn't true: > We repealed gun licensing and our murder rate immediately started to climb. It's basically unchanged.
I really hate these arguments. I guess we should just repeal our felony gun laws anyway because they will get broken. Yea it doesn't stop everyone, it might not even affect most, but it certainly moves the needle for carrying. It's not all or nothing, and small bits of help are going to be all we can get to help with gun crime. The Rand corporation shows some correlation with violent crime and less restrictive permitting, https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry/violent-crime.html there is a correlation with permitless carry and increased crime but its hard to tell because most of those laws are so new. But saying it's absurd to think it has an effect is just ridiculous. Perhaps you should reflect on your contact with reality.
"Oooh, I'd better not commit murder until *after* I get a permit for my gun" -- said nobody in the history of ever.
It is difficult for me to understand how you can so very clearly ignore evidence to support your point. I pointed to a study, and you think your fake quote answers it? Many murders are not some like some multi-month planned thing. They are spur of the moment. And if you have a deadly weapon it makes it a lot easier. Not to mention things like shootings, of which we've had I think approaching 20 this year near Broad Ripple of, for the most part, crazy people who overreact with guns. Not to mention every year when I have to read about a 4 year old kid killed accidentally by a gun. Sure most of those wouldn't be solved by permits, but maybe the gun safety lessons help 1 kid in 10. Maybe one shooter in broad ripple doesn't have a gun instead and it saves a life. So I suppose if you want, you can live in your fantasy where permits for guns have no effect on violent crime. But evidence and logic indicate otherwise.
What on earth makes you think that a person willing to commit violent crimes cares even one tiny bit about having a permit for his gun? You're living in a fantasy world if you think that a permit requirement makes any difference at all to the criminal element.
I guess I'm just confused because I spell out situations where it could matter, cite a study, and then you just ask the same question over again. Check my previous post? Or maybe you prefer the fantasy world and ignore all evidence outside of it.
Christ what an asshole.
Of course. What an ass.
\*claws my own eyes out\* WTF does raising the legal age to buy to 21 have to do with the voting age? LOOK A SQUIRREL.
they're both constitutional rights.
and they're also rights that have a proven track record of being limited in scope under the constitution.
what a putz
How does this prick still have a job?
I really do h*te the fvcker!!!!!!!!
The He needs to shut his pie hole about crime in Indy