Tag Info

This has happened as recently as 2014 in Bunkerville, Clark County, Nevada. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff The 2014 Bundy standoff was an armed confrontation between supporters of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy and law enforcement following a 21-year legal dispute in which the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM) obtained court orders ...

It hasn't happened. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision. It exists to protect the American people from government tyranny and oppression. The U.S. government has not exercised its power against the American people in what would be considered mass tyranny and oppression (e.g., Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union, Castro's Cuba, Ceaușescu's ...

From the details in the The Violence Project database. The following can be seen. In six incidents, armed civilians were present at the location. (Armed Police were present in 19 Incidents) out of 175 recorded incidents. The average number of people who were killed and injured in these 175 incidents are 7.18 dead and 11.6 injured. For shootings with an ...

Yes, the constitution can be amended. In fact the second amendment is just that: an amendment. You can continue to add new amendments, even on existing amendments. This has actually already happened. The 18th amendment established Prohibition. After a short time the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment. So it is entirely possible to create a ...

Unfortunately, statistics based on actual events are not able to answer this question. A working hypothesis is that a higher rate of gun ownership among targets will discourage potential shooters from trying. Similarly, easier access to guns will encourage potential shooters to try. The policy can clearly be counter-productive if only partially implemented, ...

The most recent event I can identify is the Battle of Athens. It was a direct confrontation with the corruption of the local government and efforts to rig the election to ensure the continuity of power. Recently returned veterans used their personal firearms to secure the ballot boxes and the court house, ensuring a free election.

TL:DR; Some states still do have militias. Realistically, in the modern era the U.S. states are not expected to require defense from the federal government, nor would such a defense seem possible if the entire U.S. military was willing to robotically follow unlawful or tyrannical orders (something which their oath to the Constitution forbids). At the ...

There are several factors that make this a very difficult question to answer definitively. What exactly is a "mass shooting"? What exactly does it mean to stop a mass shooting? How to account for mass shootings that are prevented by armed citizens, or even by the possibility that armed citizens will be present? Should other similar violent crimes ...

Excerpt on the summary from the Wikipedia page on the case: (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 ...

A couple things: Militia referred to all able-bodied men in the community. As such, "member of militia" and "citizens" were mostly synonymous if you limit citizens to people eligible to vote at that time (free men; not slaves, women, or children). Obviously the definition of citizens has expanded since then. A natural synonym for "well-regulated" at ...

To address your broader question, I think you, like many, many others, mistake the scope and intent of the Second Amendment. The amendment is not limited to enabling resistance of internal government tyranny and I think too many mistakenly focus solely on that aspect. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of ...

Justice of the Supreme Court Paul Stevens: Congress may authorize members of the National Guard to be ordered to active federal duty for training outside the U. S. without either the consent of a state governor or the declaration of a national emergency. and The governor [of Minnesota] doesn't challenge the authority of Congress to create a dual-...

Another relevant example was the "Little Rock crisis" -- see Arkansas National Guard and the integration of Central High School. The timeline as I understand it was: Some people want to "integrate" the school There's a federal (Supreme) court ruling to do that Segregationists protest The Governor sends the National Guard to keep the peace -- to keep the ...

Every day. The second amendment isn't exercised when someone pulls the trigger in an act of rebellion against the government; it's exercised whenever a civilian purchases a firearm. Actually using them is to be avoided as far as possible, but having them acts as a deterrent by creating the credible threat that strongarm tactics on the part of the government ...

The 2nd Amendment is subject to government regulations. This is known as the National Firearms Act First enacted in 1934 as a reaction to the St Valentine's Day Massacre in Chicago, it required registration with the federal government, and placed a heavy (for the time) transfer tax on what was categorized as NFA firearms: fully automatic, shotguns and ...

As a matter of history, the answer is of course unknowable. As a matter of law, the answer is that the Second Amendment was intended to preserve more than just state militias. Instead, it was adopted to preserve the right of "all able-bodied men" to bear arms, regardless of their membership in any government-sanctioned fighting force. Importantly, whatever ...

The 'Militia' and the 2nd Amendment The National Guard is part of the 'militia,' but it is not all of it. Under current law, the 'militia' of the United States literally includes all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Even so, the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment is not limited to the 'militia,' but rather explicitly applies to &...

A "standard" argument (in the sense that I've seen it many times) is to point out how costly asymmetric insurgencies are for the "big guy", ranging from Vietnam, [Soviet] Afghanistan, etc. Or even less intense conflicts like the [Irish] Troubles. So the argument goes, the mere threat of armed insurgency is a big deterrent to government oppression. To quote ...

It's important to note that banning all semi-automatic weapons is a far more expansive stance than most candidates are willing to take (which is remarkable in a year when they've run further Left on some equally important issues). A semi-automatic gun is a gun that Discharges one bullet per trigger pull Ejects the spent cartridge Loads a new round This is ...

No, even originalists recognize that rights have some limits. Speech is limited in cases of inciting violence, acceptable arms are similarly limited. This is a false dilemma, the second amendment can be reasonably limited without wholesale reinterpretation to a modernized definition. There is a massive pile of evidence that the founders understood that ...

To answer your question in short: Hard No: Explosives (Grenades, bombs, det charges) Chemical weapons (viruses, nerve gas, caustic gas) Flamethrowers of any significant power Anything you could not reasonably consider a personal armament (Field artillery, tank cannons, helicopter gunship missile pods) Legal, with restrictions (see also NFA Items): These ...

As multiple Conservative commentators have noted, Trump never really changed his position on guns, he just wasn't as vocal about it as Hillary Clinton was. I mean, the man had stated, multiple times prior to his candidacy, that he was for gun control and never really repudiated that position (which is notable for a candidate who repudiated a LOT of his prior ...

The individual servicemen have a say in the matter This is unfortunately mostly anecdotal evidence, but for a mostly hypothetical topic such as this, I don't know what hard evidence I can give. But with that qualification, it is ultimately up to the individual members of the Guard to whom their loyalty lies in case of a state attempting to protect itself ...

The most relevant Supreme Court decision on this matter is District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the entirety of which is a good read for anyone interested in these matters. To excerpt a brief section that directly addresses this particular question (I've added some emphasis of my own, as it is still somewhat longish): Like most rights, ...

To answer the question as asked, as far as I know, the answer is "never". The question itself, though, is based on a common misunderstanding of the intent of the 2nd amendment. Here's the text of the amendment, in full: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall ...

In addition to all the textual explanations, I think you have to look at politics and the practical impact of the Second Amendment. The original intent of the 2nd Amendment was that any citizen could own any kind of "arms", which meant any militarily useful weapon or armour. At the time the biggest and most destructive weapon of any kind was a warship, and ...

Because of the nature of the Second Amendment and its relative ambiguity, the line where something becomes permissible to prohibit is not clear. This was a longstanding question until the case of Heller v. DC (PDF). In the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia, the Court came to a partial conclusion that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, and the ...

Never. This has never happened, and cannot happen. The Second Amendment ensures that the Militia can be armed so that it can be called up by the government to defend the United States as a whole, and each State individually. The Militia that the Second Amendment refers to is described in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power.....