‘I’m So Confused’: Amy Coney Barrett Slams Defense Attorney Argument In Disarmament Case
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2023
- Earlier this month, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned a defense attorney on his method of reasoning during the domestic abuser disarmament case the United States v. Rahimi's oral argument.
Fuel your success with Forbes. Gain unlimited access to premium journalism, including breaking news, groundbreaking in-depth reported stories, daily digests and more. Plus, members get a front-row seat at members-only events with leading thinkers and doers, access to premium video that can help you get ahead, an ad-light experience, early access to select products including NFT drops and more:
account.forbes.com/membership...
Stay Connected
Forbes on Facebook: forbes
Forbes Video on Twitter: / forbes
Forbes Video on Instagram: / forbes
More From Forbes: forbes.com
She's not confused. She's telling him that he's confused.
Why are they arguing about something that is stated very clearly in the constitution?!?!
Exactly!!!
Over a century of 2A violating infringements have been enacted by organized crime in government. People think the status quo is rule of the land and by extension, Constitutional, when these infringements clearly are not.
Because lower courts these days are very politically driven and will rule according to their emotions and feelings.
They have been trying to change the constitution forever. Politicians should be held accountable for each and every lie they tell. They should be fined for every promise they make the do not keep.
It's not clear at all! What does the constitution say about dangerous people owning guns!?
Government should have NOTHING to do with gun laws, rules or regulations. It’s spelled out directly in the US Constitution. Also, the constitution was was constructed under the premises of freedom. For those that don’t understand this (pretty much a lot of Americans) your freedom does NOT come from another human and especially any organization like the Govt.
@ISI12345 Correct, our freedom is not granted by any person or government. As stated in our Declaration of Independence we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These truths are assumed to be self evident.
Correct. Our country was created to protect natural rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, it is only legitimate to the extent that it does so. When it attacks natural rights, it ceases to be legitimate.
Amen
@@bruceb5481 I concur
@@bruceb5481 "These truths are assumed to be self evident."
Unfortunately, they are not self-evident, or evident in any way, to morons and we have PLENTY of those these days.
Shall not be INFRINGED was INFRINGED upon with the felony rule in the first place, it's a GOD given right to defend yourselves.. PERIOD..
What about us atheists, don't we have rights??
@@Sarah-im3lp "... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, ..."
@@Sarah-im3lp ask God why he gave us these rights... Your going to see him soon enough ,👹
@@Sarah-im3lp A Gods not real argument to be pro taking guns is most cringe thing I've ever heard. God not being real should scare you more about what your fellow man can do to you. With the name Sarah I assume you're a woman. That means you should be FOR the great equalizer that is the 2nd Amendment. The government won't protect you.
@@ohsam5954Most women will think with their feelings.
SHALL... NOT... BE... INFRINGED!
Well... Regulated....
@@vanessajazp6341 Yeah? The next word is militia... Good job...
@@ohsam5954 But every word in the 2nd Amendment follows "A WELL REGULATED...".
Gun nuts always either ignore that line or try to say it means something other than what it plainly means.
I've listened to much of this case and IMO this defense attorney is out of his league. I hope the court rules correctly in spite of him.
He definitely sounds as confused AF
He wasn’t expecting them to take this case but the feds wanted it appealed. That’s why he’s weak and not knowledgeable about it. They wanted to spotlight violent offenders having their guns removed without due process using that nut job as an example even though the bulk majority of cases it’s people that aren’t violent criminals having it happen to them.
I agree, but remember the defense attorney for Mr. Rahimi was also on the government’s payroll. They’re never confident or competent arguing either pro or anti gun cases because they don’t want to admit it, but they don’t want to actually be helping the 2A cause and they’re too emotional to have a good rational argument for gun-control either.
Rules that a man has his fundamental rights upheld??? That is the only good ruling in favor of Rahimi.
Remember, in this case Rahimi was convicted of domestic abuse against his ex. He has a history of violence including gun violence. He was afforded due process at the hearing regarding the protective order which included surrendering his firearms for the 2-year period of the protective order. No firearms for 2 years - too bad. Next time don't be a criminal.
“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.
Taking the ability to buy automatic weapons doesn't violate the constitution!
You can still own and buy guns just not machine guns
You are not guaranteed the right to buy machine guns
Regulating the types of guns you can buy is not against the constitution
@@roberthepburn-gr4fqIt actually does violate the Constitution. The Founders were talking about all arms available to fight and deter tyranny at all levels, not just individual self protection.
It was multi-layered:
Individual
Families
Townships
States
Union of States
Absolutely Right!
@@LRRPFco52 they would have if they knew what advances would be coming
You are a little delusional
@@roberthepburn-gr4fq so in your viewpoint, if the government banned everything but BB guns, that would be constitutional, correct?
What do you believe the purpose of the 2nd amendment is, other than to drive liberals crazy?
Second amendment SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!! there is no debate!
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
Yes, it does, but, well, the sticking point here seems to be the word "infringed". It's just too big a word for small minds to encompass.
@@edb3877 LOL "infringed". It's just too big a word for small minds to encompass.
I'm keeping that one LOL
Should people in prison be allowed to have firearms?
@@KendraAndTheLaw
@@KendraAndTheLaw < Name one gun law that has stopped any mass shooting or shooting from 1979 to 2023.. you cant you Know why Because People that do this, they don't obey laws..
This brief clip is too short to get the context for her confusion.
exactly as they want it.
This is the media's modus operandi. Take a very, very small snippet from a conversation, focus on it and ignore what context it was extracted from. This is now the norm for media to establish a specific perspective so they can support their agenda.
Because Forbes is anti 2A.
I've listened to several clips...and THIS "defense attorney" SOUNDS LIKE he's WORKING FOR THE PROSECUTOR!!
She asked him point blank if this violated his 2nd Amendment Constitutional Right... and he DEBATED HER!!!!?? It SHOULD have been an IMMEDIATE "ABSOLUTELY YES...IT VIOLATES MY CLIENTS 2nd AMENDMENT CONSTITUIONAL RIGHT"!!!
Right, we don't know what question he was answering.
If someone is supposedly too dangerous to own a gun, then WHY LET THEM OUT OF PRISON?
You can't have your cake, and eat it, too.
What if there not in prison 🤔
The restraining order which in part required Rahimi to surrender his firearms for the 2-year duration of the restraining order was part of his sentence following his conviction for domestic violence. Completely reasonable and also in accordance with the 5th A.
No government official has any legal lawful constitutional authority or jurisdiction to pass or enforce any gun control laws whatsoever. Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1, second amendment,14th amendment forbids the government authority and jurisdiction.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Amendment 14 section 1
NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
Second amendment
THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
You do know there’s more than one definition of United States.. we are not bound to the constitution, only the government.. the constitution says how tyrannical a government can be.. and we are experiencing tyranny.. question is.. what are we going to do about it?
@@AlexanderSupertramp142 all citizens are bound to the constitution not just the state and federal government.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law.
Title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection (5).
@@dragonf1092 there’s more than one constitution.. by the governments own definition, I’m not a citizen.. I’m an American national.. I never took an oath of office, I’m not bound to the constitution.. I’m bound by universal law.. don’t lie, cheat, steal or murder.
@@AlexanderSupertramp142 the constitution of the united states of America supercedes all state constitutions. State constitutions didn't exist when the united states constitution was written states didn't exist there were 13 colonies, the US constitution established the states.
You forgot to read the 5th Amendment and you seem to be completely unaware of the case in question here. Rahimi was convicted of domestic violence and had a history of violence including gun violence.
The second is a critical part of the bill of rights. No one argues that the term people in the 1st, 4th, 10th and 14th amendments. Why would the term "people" in the 2nd be any different as the anti-gunners are trying to argue. Both McDonald and Heller are precident in that the term people applies both to the the DC enclave and the rest of the country. We have Scalia to thank for that who wrote the majority opinion and was very direct with it.
This comment is completely off topic as it has nothing to do with individual rights, collective rights, or militias. Rahimi was convicted of domestic violence against his ex-wife in a court of law where he was afforded all the protections of due process in accordance with 5th Amendment. He had a history of violence including gun violence so the court sentence included a restraining order. The court reasonably determined him to be a threat to his victim. Because of this, part of the restraining order required him to surrender his firearms for the 2-year duration of the restraining order. If he wanted to keep his firearms he shouldn't have chosen to be a violent criminal. This was not some arbitrary restraining order issued by a judge without cause if that's what you're thinking.
I'm confused as well. Does this government attorney actually support the Second Amendment? Or, is he ridiculing the Supreme Court?
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means ... that since the country's security requires an Army, Navy, Marines, and other as yet unforeseen forms of government security and oversite (ATF, FBI, CIA, DEA, CBC, FAMS, Secret Service, Homeland Security, etc.) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" meaning that the "People" have the right and responsibility to protect themselves from government tyranny. And that the government can not hinder or restrict the means of securing that Right.
Actually, from tyranny whatever the source... "foreign or domestic" rings a bell.
@@edb3877 Actually "foreign" tyranny is supposed to be handled by all those government agencies.
However, if they (Army, Navy, etc.) fail then indeed the job is left up to armed citizens to suppress either or both forms of tyranny.
@@mrbill2600 Yeah, they are doing such a magnificent job of protecting the country at the southern border, as the invasion of illegal migrants rolls on.
In fact, they are doing a horrible job of this and are choosing to do this for political reasons. The good news is that it seems to be backfiring horribly.
The constitution can’t b infringed 😁
But, in times of war, civil insurrection, emergency THE U.S. CONSTITUTION has been suspended by martial law.
The Constitution is not quite as simple as you. Have you noticed that prisoners are not permitted to bear firearms? Where does it say that in the Constitution?
@@worrywart1311
Kathy Hochul is clearing criminal records in NY …..now they can arm up legally
@@worrywart1311They were permitted actually for 100s of years, then authoritarian rats came up with the term “felon”. Then expanded it to include minor offenses.
I dont give a crap what they pass, or how any court rules. I am not giving up my self defense.
Lawyer Overmatched ? 😏
Too bad the lawyer gave horrible arguments. Court does not seem convinced to overtime this precedent
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson.
@@KendraAndTheLawoperative word being ‘free’.
@vashmatrix5769: Except Rahimi was convicted of domestic violence. Now read and understand the 5th A.
"Shall Not Infringe" !!! How hard can it be??? Our Nations Founders got Right!!!
Great stuff
_People_ have rights... the federal government has certain powers, or authorities, as specified in the US Constitution.
It’s so sad to see our government arguing so vociferously to take away the rights of its law abiding citizens to protect themselves. They never seem to argue in favor of giving us more rights, always less and less and less, and always for them more power, more power, more power.
This is getting interesting
Shall not be infringed upon PERIOD
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED the end !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WELL REGULATED MILITIA. The end
@@zoneflare2363 That argument was laughed out of court some time ago. Still, you should read 10 USC Chapter 12 §246 to learn the unorganized militia consists of every U.S. citizen over the age of 17 - which make the "militia" argument moot.
@@larrymajor1487 DON'T WORRY THERE WON'T BE ANY "CONFUSION" WHEN YOU ARE IN SHACKLES INSIDE OF A FEMA CAMP WAITING YOUR TURN FOR THE INCINERATOR.
@@zoneflare2363 well regulated meant well armed in the 18th century and "shall not be" meant the government cannot get in the way of that right
They should have taken his car away because he dragged her into it.
I'M 70 YEARS OLD---MARINE VET----MAILMAN RETIRED---I NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE POLICE, BUT I COULD END UP BEING A FELON AT AGE 70 WITH 2 YEARS IN PRISON..
What happened to the female solicitor general?
Then just be clear.
Ssso much slamming here. 🙄
😮
Dude started his reply sounding like a machine gun.
So this is all mute and irrelevant. If the weirdos think anyone is giving up their guns... They obviously are not living in the real world.
I need context. The video is way too short.
Is there historical evidence of a law around 1791 that is similar to the law in question?
Stop with the history lessons! It's 2023!
@@Sarah-im3lp The whole issue in the latest SCOTUS ruling that says only laws in place at the founding relating to gun rights can be used to support existing gun laws.
@@Sarah-im3lpwhat's wrong with history. . ...
@@Sarah-im3lp you should move to china i heard that only the government has guns like Tiananmen squate....
@@Sarah-im3lp I'll bet USD1.00 that if you agreed with a law from the year 348 AD you would be a big history fan.
I can't wait to see this dobber in front of a SHARIA court..................................
Does the Constitution give the government rights?
Trust me...Amy is not confused.
Purposefully making confusing changing arguments...
This guy doesnt know what he is talking about, stuttering says it all
This "defense" attorney SOUNDS like he's WORKING FOR THE PROSECUOTR!!
It is a lawyers job to muddy the waters with confusion. Good for Justice Barret to unwind this idiot.
This defense attorney sucks. It's sad this is the lawyer entrusted with making an effective argument against the government's actions.
0
How bout using plain language? Never trust double speak or gobbledygook.
The whole idea of "pre-crime" is untenable because it opens the whole system (and ignoring the Second Amendment) open to abuse e.g., ""I thought" he was carrying a firearm to commit a crime and hence he was disarmed..."
She should retire
This case is so important and sounds like we have an unprepared counsel arguing in front of the court. Did the left somehow infiltrate the defense in this case?
Name one gun control law that has stopped shooting and mass shooting from people that will not follow the law ?
From the 1979 Cleveland Elementary School shooting (San Diego) to 2023 Not one gun law has stopped any one from Violent activity and Mass shootings, the Number one Gun smuggled in to the United States Glock 19 , the Number one Gun sold on a street corner is that same Glock 19 that was smuggled in to the United States..
Glock 19 is the most used gun in every gun crime in the United States.. But its not the gun it's the people that smuggled the gun in to the United States..
and joe Biden administration is enabling it , as well as the Democrat party for not following the laws at the border...
It's all simple and easy to understand
A country without firearms has subjects/slaves
A country with firearms has
citizens with their 2A constitutional right to defend themselves and against a tyrannical government
Aren’t the government and the lower courts hypocritical. How many times have they given the option to criminals to join the military and go to war or jail time? I know because I served with some of them.
You can't join without a waiver for a domestic violence charge, and if it is a conviction you can't get in...
Because domestic violence convictions prevent the individual from having a firearm... A domestic violence charge without conviction means you lack moral character per the US military...
So, petty criminals like low level drug dealer, drug users, petty thieves etc they just need an easy to get waiver...
However, you committed arm robbery, murder, manslaughter, grand theft, extortion, racketeering etc.. They also don't like Traffickers, so selling some weed etc is one thing, but if you are trafficker like with weight, they don't like that shit...
Most people are not real criminals in the sense they make a living and career out of committing crimes...
*_God, Guns and Guts made America Free,_*
*_God, Guns and Guts keeps America Free:_*
Why she is confused, she was put in that position to do the right thing!!!
Now Im confused. I thought McConnell and Trump put her there to determine the law without prejudice? That's not true?
@@bearsmartdurango correctomundo!!!!
We should know they took this case to offset the NYSRPA vs Bruen and the shit storm that started.
I just want to say....and this is off subject but when for the love of God are we going to close the border....this is HUGH!!!!....wake up everyone...... Before it's too late.... we have about one minute left...
What a totally beautiful woman! Totally gorgeous!!! But so intelligent too along with it.
Stop litigating our freedom...its protected
No BANS
Big ole nothing burger here. Simple question based on two separate theories of applicable law. Homeboy went sideways on a completely different section of law and how it could be applied but that has zero to do with the case before them. Can the legislature create law that unconstitutionally bans you from xyz even in your own home as it relates to firearms, short and sweet hell no, thats it, it is not complicated. The law is not psychic, nor can it see into the future. Besides the fact, going through all of that effort to take away someones rights when you can buy a gun on any corner in the usa or simply use a different weapon altogether. This snowflake way of thinking is getting boring and irritating.
SCOTUS ..follow the constitution ..people had the Right to .. 2A to
protect themselves , home and family .
Quite frankly in my opinion is the legislature has already been written by Congress and we know what it fully actually means then quite frankly the supreme court judgment is very easily if you have committed a felony or a crime or have an illegal possession of a gun you should always be banned from purchasing a gun ever again and the simple fact is protection for your home for what do you live in the wrong neighborhood is what I would be asking not only that there's ways to get around that you can have actual bow gun it's a small little gun that shoots little bitty arrows as in a crossbow gun and I mean nobody is entitled to actually own a gun unless if you are a legal citizen in the United States of America and you haven't done drugs when you filled out that application because I know what this is all about it's all about Hunter biden's case why do you think David Wise has taken so long to bring that charge against Hunter Biden with a possession ofgun while he was under the influence of cocaine or whatever drug that he happily love to smoke at that time and then what did they do with it they threw it in a dumpster and then had the secret service go back and pick up the illegal gun that Hunter Biden possessed in the first damn place the book should be thrown at Hunter Biden irregardless if he fired a gun or not or he had it in his possession for 11 damn days like his attorney Abby law has been saying that's not an argument to let him off the hook for possessing a gun illegally I don't give a damn if he's the president's son or not lock his ass up for 20 damn years because you know if it was you or I or some other little pissant that isn't worth crap except maybe $1,000 a month worth of social security maybe or somebody else that actually only makes roughly 20 or $30,000 a year and is abiding by the law you must own that gun lawdully
A well regulated sentence structure, being necessary to the understanding of an idea, The Right of the People to know and use Punctuation SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Bro, exercise your rights.
Wrong
All felons born or naturalized in the united states are citizens of the united states. The government state/federal has no legal lawful authority or jurisdiction to deny any American citizen whether they are labeled a felon or not the right to buy or carry any gun whatsoever. The constitution explicitly forbids it, the legal law explicitly forbids it.
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Second amendment
THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
14th amendment section 1
NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES
Title 18 U.S.C. section 241 conspiracy against rights.
Title 18 U.S.C. section 242 deprivation of rights under color of law.
Title 5 U.S.C. section 7311 Ex. ORD. No. 10450 subsection (5).
The only illegal gun/unlawful possession of gun is a stolen gun in the united states of America. All gun control laws were illegally passed they were illegal null and void from the time of their enactment. Illegal unconstitutional Gun control laws didn't exist before the year 1934.
Supreme court
"The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law,is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since it's unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment.. in legal contemplation it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void the general principles follow that it imposes no duties,confers no right,creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it. A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supercede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land (the constitution)it is superceded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Bonnet V. Vallier,16 NW. 885,136 Wis. 193(1908); Norton V. Shelby county,118 US 425(1886).
A law repugnant to the constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the constitution cannot become law. The constitution supercedes all other laws and the individuals rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.
Marbury V. Madison,5 US 137(1803).
An unconstitutional law is void and is as no law. An offense created by it is not a crime. A conviction under it is not merely erroneous but is illegal and void and cannot be used as a legal cause of imprisonment.
Ex parte Siebold,100 US-371(1879).
Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them.
Miranda V. Arizona,384 US 436 p.491.
All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void.
Marbury V. Madison,5 US (2nd Branch)137,174,176(1803).
The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.
Miller V. US 230 F. 2d. 486,489.
No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.
Murdock V. Pennsylvania,319 US 105.
If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.
Shuttles worth V. City of Birmingham, Alabama,373 US 262.
The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally protected liberties.
Boyd V. US 116 US 616.
The constitution is a written instrument. As such it's meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted it means now.
S. Carolina V. US 199 US 437,448(1905).
Article 4 section 2 paragraph 1.
The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
14th amendment section 1.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states
Nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Second amendment
THE RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Faithless groups are confusing that God must do something contrary according to Biblical perspective
We are a SECULAR nation!
Leave our guns alone . The constitution and bill of rights gave us this right. Amy don’t listen to this goober.
The right to defend yourself is a natural right. The Constitution merely restricts government from taking that right away from you -- you had it upside down.
Lawyers need to be replaced by AI
Amy is a Biden 😢
No she isn’t
for a public defender taking a case to scotus he did well
I would agree. And he had very little support from the pro 2A community. Given the circumstances, irrespective of the outcome, he should be proud of himself.
@@FinalLugiaGuardian well yeah it's not a good look given everything else rahimi did win or lose he will be in prison for a long time it's why the DOJ pushed this case
@kidfunkyfri3308 yes its not good. But the attorney did very good, given his circumstances. That is what I was saying.
THE EXTREME COURT, LADEN WITH UNETHICAL CONDUCT, SHOULD BE DISBANDED AND RE-ASSEMBLED WITH TERM LIMITS. BREAKING OATHS OF OFFICE SHOULD BE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE WITH MEAGINGFUL PUNISHMENT.
All caps to express pure ignorance of the facts and reality. Bravo.
That would take 2/3 of Congress and 2/3 of the states to approve such a change, because it’s written in to the Constitution (Article 3)
Originalism is inadequate. And it's a really stupid idea in the first place
Not sure what your mean. Originalism means exactly what the document says. The first 10 amendments are restrictions on GOVT, not the PEOPLE. Basically it means, if a sign says do not enter, it means exactly that, no one enter. Not because I felt like it or it was raining, or I was being chased by bad men, or the moon has lined up in Aries... It means do not enter. The original meaning of any thing has to be what it means when written.
Nicely articulated
How do you have "Rule of Law" with out originalism?
Seriously, it doesn't exist without it.
Without original intent, the courts become a superior legislature with no check or balance.
Please, go back and think about your statement a little more.
The Constitution can be amended. That is the remedy. What too difficult? That is by design.
the 2nd is not absolute the courts do have the right to individually exclude people of their rights , that is in the Constitution don't read just one sentence , militias are unconstitutional we have the national guard in all states, that is regulated the word regulated is what you all keep forgetting
You can not read!! SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!!!!
"Regulated" means, well-trained/prepared. The Supreme Court has held in Heller, MacDonald and Bruen, that INDIVIDUALS have a right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in and outside of their homes. And the "militia" meant "all of the people" -- not a group of people appointed by the government. You have to look at the Second Amendment like all of the other amendments -- it is there to protect The People (individually, and as a whole) from the government. You have a First Amendment right to speak out individually, and so does a group (as in a protest).
You are grossly incorrect. To start with, you need to read federalist paper #29. Secondly, the context of “regulated” has changed dramatically over the last century. Anti gun groups fall into this language use trap all the time. Third, the notion of a national guard is relatively recent. It can be argued that the NG evolved out of the multiple tier militia definition under federalist #29. In short your time lines are all messed up. Lastly, the use of ex parte laws have gained favor. These include TPOs, Red Flags etc. But they are a distinct violation of the 5th amendment, multiple sub sections there of.
The issues within the constitution reflect heavily on the unjust actions of the crown, it’s adherence to Star chambers and the ultimate denial of due process.
You are absolutely right! Antonin Scalia wrote, "The right to bear arms is not unlimited, and reasonable restrictions on guns and gun ownership are permissible"! (DC vs Heller)!
@@BruthaVIII Almost correct. “Regulated” was a term defining stream lined government or management. Optimized Efficiency would be a good definition for “regulated”. But it gets worse. The government has always been short on guns and that is a topic on its own. So it was expected for individuals to own their own guns. Each state was to implement an efficient and streamlined program to ensure that individuals understood how to shoot and maintain their guns. That’s all! As for militia membership. There was a multi tier definition of citizen militias. The state militias would select from the most able bodied. The remainder would be a general militia not necessarily controlled by the governor. Throughout our government, every area of power had checks and balances. This was no different. It kept the prospect of government endorsed tyrannical vigilante groups in check. The genius of our system cannot be over emphasized. It’s brilliant!
RIMO supreme!!!
She is always confused.