LRRPF52 Wrote:One thing we're seeing with State shut-down of Bureaus of Criminal Records and related background checks, is the effective elimination of people's ability to legally purchase firearms in many States.

Additionally, the sheer demand of background checks has overloaded several States' ability to conduct the checks, effectively eliminating purchasing options for the people attempting to purchase firearms from their local FFLs.

This whole experience serves as an example of why background checks, NICS, and all the layers of counter-Constitutional laws undermine the intent of the Founders.

Considering that some police departments are announcing that they will no longer respond to certain felonious behavior because they are infected too, one starts to appreciate the pure nature of the 2A before it was violated with the:

* race-based laws post-Civil War,
* race-based laws passed in gangland cities during Prohibition to handicap rival immigrant gangs,
* the 1934 FDR Administration's massive overhaul of the 2A to eliminate purchase and possession of most useful arms for the militia,
* the 1968 Gun Control Act,
* the 1986 Ban,
* 1989 import ban,
* the 1994 AWB,
* and the subsequent NICS and State BCI background check laws.

Quote:In Washington State there are no practical firearms to purchase. When people figured out the potential impact of the virus on society, they made a run for any firearm they could find that could be used in self protection.

stanc Wrote:The "pure nature" of the 2A has never actually existed. Even when the 2A was enacted, it was being violated by the Founders themselves, with laws prohibiting the vast majority of black people from keeping and bearing arms.

Nor do background checks and NICS undermine the intent of the Founders. The intent of the 2A was to ensure that members of State militias had access to the weapons they were required to own under the Second Militia Act of 1792. Since criminals would not be desired in a State militia, requiring background checks to purchase militia weapons is compatible with the Founders' intent.

The 1934 NFA and the 1986 machine gun ban would violate the intent of the 2A, were it not for the fact that the State militia system was superseded in 1903 by the National Guard, which provides all required weaponry. Since there is no longer a Federal mandate that militia members provide their own weapons, and indeed privately-owned firearms are prohibited for military duties, NFA restrictions and the ban on machine guns are no impediment to modern militia duty.

grayfox Wrote:It also fails because of the plain language of the Constitution. In the 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The construction of this Amendment shows perfectly that 3 entities are in view: the United States (the federal government), the States (respectively) (ie, individual states as components of the country), or to the people.
Powers given to the States differ from rights to the people. Now the 2A states that the "right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." therefore, it confers protection to a right held by individual people, and specifically, not to "the States respectively". And no federal law can overturn that, it would take an amendment to the Constitution to change that.
It does NOT say, "the right of the States respectively to keep and bear arms, etc etc..."
It does say, "... the right of the People..."
No federal law concerning what or how a "national" guard could or should be used (let alone whether that NG even exists or not...) can contravene this constitutional right possessed by individuals. Federal law cannot trump the Constitution. It could conceivably add to or take advantage of, such individual ownership (keep and bear) but it cannot contradict it.
I have written on this before and I acknowledge that some on here may not agree, which is fine, but I believe the wording of the Constitution is both plain and clear in that 3 separate entities are in view. And, the declarative right of the 2A states that very clearly, that the people can keep and bear, People, as opposed to States (respectively) and as opposed to the US federal government. Only a contortionist would interpret this otherwise, in my opinion.

LRRPF52 Wrote:Your argument is based on the premise that federalizing the State Guards is in congruence with the right of the people to keep and bear arms...

LRRPF52 Wrote:When State Guard units were converted from defending the States to US Federal standing Army reserve components forces, able to be called to duty by executive order of the President, they ceased to fulfill any legal definition of the local militia.

LRRPF52 Wrote:Therefore, anyone with basic reasoning and critical analysis can plainly see that the people were left for themselves to act in the original capacity of a militia.

LRRPF52 Wrote:Especially in a time like this, where National Guard units are being called to serve in a Federal capacity, and local law enforcement is openly stating that they will not respond to many felonious crimes in one of the biggest metro areas of Texas, the role of the 2A in maintaining order by deterrence shines for itself.

LRRPF52 Wrote:It's a very gymnastic exercise to attempt when trying to make an argument that the Bill of Rights is not speaking about the rights of the people...

LRRPF52 Wrote:We're off to a derail once again...

Chev2500 Wrote:In D.C. vs. Heller The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The US Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution is the only interpretation of consequence.
Back to the OP: in Montana if you have a concealed carry permit there is no call in for background check. You fill out the form and show your CCP, pay ,and leave with your gun. But i do not understand people waiting to buy their first gun for protection until right before they may need it?

phishfood Wrote:Kinda the same thing as not buying masks or hand sanitizer until you know there is a rapidly spreading infection out there.

Yes, it might be better to have some such emergency stuff in place beforehand, but that doesn't mean that people don't have a need for it, or should be prevented from buying them last minute.

As much as it sucks, this situation could help open up a lot of people's eyes regarding gun rights, and make them see gun bans as the power grabs that they are.

grayfox Wrote:Apologies, did not mean to get side-tracked.
I did find a headline just now on Breitbart that the PA governor has reversed himself (a partial response to a 2AF lawsuit, and the article mentions that more lawsuits are in progress in other states...), and now will allow gun dealers to remain open as life-sustaining operations.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/03/24/pa-governor-pivots-gun-dealers-life-sustaining-can-remain-open/

So, back on topic now!

stanc Wrote:No, my argument is based on the premise that because the National Guard assumed the function of the State militias established by the Founders, and because National Guard members are not required to provide their own weapons, the Founders' intent in writing the 2A has been rendered irrelevant.


a. The Federal government has always had the power to call up State militias for use in the service of the United States. (See Article I, Section 8.)

b. There is no legal definition of "local militia" -- at least I could not find one -- but there most assuredly is a legal definition of "militia" that covers the National Guard. (See 10 US Code §246.)


Nonsense.

1. The National Guard is used to perform all of the functions that the original State militias did.

2. The State militias established by the Founders were official military forces under control of the States, and subject to Federal control. A bunch of private citizens with guns does not constitute a State militia as conceived by the Founders.


AFAIK, the 2A has never "maintained order" or deterred anyone from doing anything. The 2A has not deterred criminals from committing felonious acts, and it has not deterred government from infringing on the RKBA.


I did not make such an argument. You and grayfox seem to be erroneously reading something into my post that I did not write.


:confused: I addressed topics which you yourself devoted well over 50% of the OP to: The intent of the 2A, and various gun laws.

LRRPF52 Wrote:If the "National Guard" is in another State or deployed overseas acting in the capacity of Army Reserves, how do they protect the State under the Governor's leadership?

LRRPF52 Wrote:"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

LRRPF52 Wrote:"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

LRRPF52 Wrote:This isn't the thread to knee-jerk a subtractively-argumentative exercise in debate for the sake of debate.
This is a real series of events that are negatively affecting people.
Even for those that are prepared, we make regular firearms purchases and buy ammo regularly.
Let's say I discover that my new concealed carry handgun doesn't fit my tastes as well as I thought it would.
Now I would like to go purchase another one that will fill that void.
Sorry, background checks are back-logged, sucks to be you.
How about the young adults who have waited under the arbitrary rules of 18yrs or 21yrs of age for legal purchases through FFLs?
It isn't their fault that this all happened right when they came of age under these anti-2A laws.
What is their redress? The Constitution forbids laws from being made preventing them from keeping and bearing, and yet here are these massive legal walls preventing them from doing so.