• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Ron Paul vs. the NRA?

LkWd_Don

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
572
Location
Dolan Springs, AZ
eye95 said:
Heller and MacDonald were such overturnings. They overturned the concept fundamental to other decisions that the 2A Right belonged to the militia and not to the Individual.

As my contention is that the 2A protects the Peoples right to be equally armed as the militia. I may be misunderstanding your purpose of stating what you are.
So, let us look and see if either Heller or McDonald resulted in the overturning of the United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 concept that all male citizens are the Militia or that the people should not be armed with those weapons that are common to the militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
~~ snipped ~~
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
So in the Heller case, the Court did not overturn the United States v. Miller decision, they simply relied upon its limitation of what might be classified as not common to the Militia, yet upheld the 2A as allowing the People to be armed.

Now, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html
M c DONALD et al. v . CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller , petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendment s. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases— United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. S. 542, Presser v. Illinois , 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas , 153 U. S. 535—which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment ’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.
Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.

Here again, the Court upheld the 2A by reversing the lower court ruling, and did not overturn “United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174”
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
As many here have stated, The constitution does not give authority to the Federal government to place guards in schools. While I believe that an armed response will aid in stopping an active shooter before he can inflict the types of tragedies that he looks at, the Federal government can and would use that power for other reasons as well. We have all read the reports of TSA misconduct, do you really want little Susie to be forced to go through a cavity search each day before kindergarten?

I personally support the idea of school districts offering teachers incentives for carrying a weapon for the defense of the school. Those who don't want to wouldn't be forced to, and those who were willing to participate would be rewarded for their help. If you can't trust a teacher with a gun, why would you trust them with a child?
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Heller and MacDonald were such overturnings. They overturned the concept fundamental to other decisions that the 2A Right belonged to the militia and not to the Individual.

The SCOTUS can be (and has been) wrong. It can correct itself, however, despite being horribly, horribly wrong sometimes, it doesn't always.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I don't see it as overturning that, militia's were those able to organize and fight, it was private citizens using private arms getting together to fight.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
Heller and MacDonald were such overturnings. They overturned the concept fundamental to other decisions that the 2A Right belonged to the militia and not to the Individual.

That isn't actually the case. Within a year after the adoption of the second amendment, Congress passed the general militia act of 1792. an addition to the law a couple of months later stipulated that all white males between the age of 18 and 45 are members of the "general militia".

The law itself has been modified slightly over the last two centuries, but still exists as 10 USC § 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

So while earlier Supreme court decisions used a more "collective rights" view, modern SCOTUS simply did a better job of defining who the militia really is, according to constitutional intent and longstanding Federal law.
 

tyc

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2011
Messages
137
Location
Pocono Mountains of PA
So...is Ron right?

As far as I'm concerned, yes, he's right.

As much as I admire and respect Ron Paul, I believe him to be very wrong with respect to our past and current international activities. History - experience - has shown there are people "out there" who will try and kill us off simply because we will not submit to their way of thinking and lifestyle; i.e., they as our dictators. These are the same cracked pots that recently shot a 14 year old girl in the head simply because the kid believed that girls have just as much a right to go to school as boys do. Save for the Nazi way of handling such differences of opinion, to my way of thinking it simply does not get much more wrong than that.

As for the NRA, it is my belief that their time is now on the wane. There's effectively been only one (1) individual in charge at NRA and he's been there for far too long. NRA clearly needs a new "mouth piece" and has for quite some time now.

tyc
 
Last edited:

hermannr

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
2,327
Location
Okanogan Highland
Yes, Ron Paul is correct...and the NRA response shows their true lack of understanding and support of the 2A.

Schools are struggling, they do not need another expense like trying to turn the schools into a secure prison faciility, or pay for an armed guard to be present at all times.

The School staff has a right to protect themselves, and a duty to protect the children in their care...what better answer than to allow the teachers to bear arms for that purpose?
 

Keylock

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
196
Location
OKC
The SCOTUS very clearly stated that the RKBA is an individual Right. That is new.

Took them long enough to agree with the Creator... the guy in the sky, the big kahuna, the great spirit.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
He [Ron Paul] continued: "I don't agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence.
Existing federal law that prohibits firearms on "campus" have effectively been rendered null and void by the enactment of a firearms "licensing" process for the citizenry at the state level. Federal law provides for its voiding through the state legislative process. It, the GFSZ Act, does not prohibit a teacher or school staff members from carrying a firearm if the school administration permits the carry of a firearm. Essentially it is a employment concern. Will a lawfully armed teacher or staff member be permitted to retain their position if they choose to carry as the law provides?

Why is there any call for a more stringent "training" requirement for a teacher on the job and not for the parent who visits the school? A armed teacher is not there to protect the children but to protect themselves. If the act of self defense by a teacher happens to protect the children that is a benefit that costs nothing.

The United States is a nation of laws and this is what differentiates us from every other "civilized" society on this planet. Our respect for the law as a society is what differentiates us from the citizens of those other "civilized" societies. Using our laws and legal processes to address inequities created by legislatures is what differentiates us from every other "civilized" society. What does not differentiate us from those other "civilized" societies are calls by some to have us behave as those do in those "civilized" societies and take to the streets with torches and pitchforks in hand.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
The United States is a nation of laws and this is what differentiates us from every other "civilized" society on this planet. Our respect for the law as a society is what differentiates us from the citizens of those other "civilized" societies. Using our laws and legal processes to address inequities created by legislatures is what differentiates us from every other "civilized" society. What does not differentiate us from those other "civilized" societies are calls by some to have us behave as those do in those "civilized" societies and take to the streets with torches and pitchforks in hand.

Using your post as a base to make a point I like to clarify.

Our Nation (government) is ruled by law, the citizenry should remain unencumbered by restraint as much as possible.

"The Law" has become a joke to many, respect for it dropped. I believe this isn't because of morality of the people but from the own doing of those "lawmakers". When the public observes the hypocrisy of state agents and those in power misuse and abuse the law, and out right break it. But experience or notice how quickly those in positions of "authority" will drop the hammer on the non connected, they realize the modern state of law is not for their protection but for the protection of very ones laws were meant to protect us from.
 

Z1P2

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
85
Location
Corryton
The answer is not "more police", it's more ordinary citizens who are no longer banned from carrying.

Absolutely right. Most LEO's are decent people, but none of them give a damn about your kids more than you do, and very few of them would put themselves directly in harms way for your kids' life. That's why they wait outside the school when mass shootings like Columbine are occurring, opting to move in only after the suspects have turned the gun on themselves or until they have enough officers on scene to overwhelm the assailant who is all the while picking off our kids. That changes when it's a parent protecting their kid or a teacher protecting her class.
 
Top