User talk:Keimzelle/Second Amendment

Keimzelle, I will add some commentary to some of your points in order to help the German page become more complete/accurate:


 * "local and state authorities are free to prohibit or regulate arms possession"

This is not a factual statement. In fact, it has never been ruled by the Supreme Court whether it is true, or not. Therefore it is yet to be determined and cannot be said with certainty one way or another. A study of 20th century incorporation of the 14th Amendment might lead many to believe that in fact the states do have to abide by the Second Amendment, as it has been ruled that they have to abide by the First Amendment, as ruled in Gitlow v. New York.


 * "proponents of gun laws say that only militia have the right to keep and arm bears. in this sense today's police and army have to be seen as successors to the militia because they are organized in the same fashion as the then-times militia."

A very incorrect, and misleading statement. Modern day police and Army are extremely different from 1780s US militia. Both police and active duty Army are full time employees of the United States. The Militia on the other hand are strictly civilians with no regular service obligation. The Militia, as was in 1790, was the body of the people. It is far from accurate to call modern day police and Army a general body of the people. This is very misleading.


 * "in a verbatim interpretation of the amendment, the people would have been given rights to possess poison gas, nuclear weapons and grenade launchers."

Also a statement which is misleading, for it has never been shown to be correct. It is a mere matter of personal speculation and not historical fact, and should not be presented as historical fact. For example, it is just as valid for somebody to interpret "verbatim" that the 2nd Amendment means arms belonging to a militia, as the Supreme Court ruled in US v. Miller. Therefore nuclear weapons would not be included, as they are not standard militia weapons.


 * "historical context, following u.s. v. miller (1939): arms were in the possession of the individual militia members, and a loss of the personal weapon meant his exclusion from the militia."

I don't know where you're getting this from. US v. Miller has no mention whatsoever of the necessity of being an "individual militia member." The only thing the Miller case addresses is the type of weapons. Not the status of the individual possessing those weapons. This is an often misunderstood subject and I suggest reading the entire court opinion.


 * "u.s. v. cruikshank: 2nd amendment applies only to federal legislation, and the right to keep and arm bears must not be enforced by individuals or the states"

This is true, although the Cruikshank case said the same thing about the 1st Amendment, which has been overturned by the US Supreme Court. So the validity of this case is questionable.


 * "u.s. v. miller: only militia-type weapons are protected by the 2nd amendment, and only militia members are entitled to 2nd amendment protection."

'''This is the biggest incorrect statement that you have. It is understandable, since the court case is mis-quoted so often. Nowhere in the court opinion does the court say anything remotely related to militia membership. It always addressed the firearm in question, and never the status of the defendant. It is really important you clear this up on your page.'''