Supreme court case against MA on guns

I already covered that
Kids go to compulsory education where they get education in reading comprehension and writing skills along with civics and social studies.
There is also that pesky prefatory clause in the 2nd that speaks to well regulated which means trained.

Don't shoot the messenger - I don't like it either but training for public carry will very likely be found constitutional because the framers found it important enough to mention its necessity to the state.

Based on the number of semi coherent medical reports I read every week I see no reason to believe the schools teach reading or writing.

Training doesn't mean formal instruction. Especially since just about everyone owned guns at the time the Constitution was written.

Trained in militia things. Maybe like maneuvers, group things?

And all of military training is drill&ceremony?
Oh, and a bunch of diversity stuff too.

Again, I'm a messenger interpreting what I see in the recent cases. I don't agree with the message but I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist.
Bruen says an analog must exist in TH&T. The antis have dropped the idea that "regulated" means restrictions in law and picked up on the true meaning of trained. Courts love to split the baby so training and sensitive places are the part given to appease them (they are never appeased but thats a different discussion)

The one glaring pro2a advocates have is that any "training" conducted in the use of firearms in preparation for being part of a militia was not provided by .gov or .mil historically, but by father to son when they came of age to hunt and defend the family. Hell, they were expected to show up with their own arms and ammo.

True - the judge noted that training was part of culture in years past.

And since Bruen forces them to consider historical precedent, not balancing, they cannot enforce formal training.

Whenever antis bring up training requirements I ask if there's a training issue with criminals & mass shooters and if we'd be better off if they were better trained. That usually ends that argument.
 
Last edited:
well if you have a CDL you can only have one license, that is a Federal law

It may even be for regular too, as Florida used to issue "in state only" licenses to us snowbirds that owned property so we could get the resident discounts at theme parks and such, but that stopped.... you can't even get a Florida State ID if you have a valid drivers license in another state.

Now it is has been federal law only 1 cdl license for a while as a cdl is actually a federal license. The feds have the state rmv s issue them for logistics, rather than have the feds build license centers. 60s into the 70 s multiple licenses were a thing as were multiple registrations. Back then you needed a registration in every state for a commercial vehicle. Apportioned plate system, the ifta did away with that in a way and yet still is around today. Apportioned plates your home state issues a tag and you list the states you want to drive in. Then you estimate for tour first year the miles per state. Subsequent years they use the actual miles off the log book. You pay reg fee and taxes to each state via a form. You carry a cab card and permits along with the registration, pay the ifta tax for the ifta sticker that goes on the outside of the vehicle.

Sometime in the 90s early 2000s. The American motor vehicle administrator association got together and agreed multiple non cdl s were an issue, as people with dui s and suspensions, would obtain licenses in other states. The ndr national driver registry was created. Every state agrees to check this ndr flr suspension revocation info prior to issuing a license. Also they agreed to report susp revo s to the ndr as well. Finally they report when a new license is issued and seize the previous license. Upon being notified the previous state rmv cancels the license in the database.
As for maine as of 2020 they were not checking the ndr nor cancelling other licenses. One could be susp revo in another state and obtain a maine license even with an out of state residential and mailing address. Maine just didnt care as long as the cash or check was valid. There was some pressure being applied trying to sell them into the ndr thing as a result of the nh fatality.
 
I remember few years ago coming across copies of early colonial New England town ordinances requiring the possession and maintenance of firearm, ball, and powder. This was later referenced in 2A as the regulation requirement which meant simply (at that time) properly supplied. There were regulations requiring able bodied men to possess and maintain weapons of war on the books even at the state level in Massachusetts at the time of the Pequot war. https://history.army.mil/reference/mamil/mamil.htm

Well regulated was a term clearly understood by all at the time that in order to promote the raising of militia for the common defense it was necessary for individuals "to keep and bear arms". The militias themselves had been organized by statue years before that conflict but those militias were called up from individual citizens who were required to maintain the equipment of war privately.

The earliest ordinances controlling firearms in places like the Town of Boston spoke only of not storing loaded firearms inside buildings unattended because of a perceived threat to people fighting fires. There no regulations concerning carrying loaded fire arms in the town. There were laws prohibiting hunting and target practice in town to avoid the threat of injury to unintended targets but again it was expected people would go armed for self defense in town and discharging weapons in such extreme emergencies was not prohibited.
 
And since Bruen forces them to consider historical precedent, not balancing, they cannot enforce formal training.
No, the 2nd's prefatory clause calls out the need for a trained, disciplined and armed populous.
Revolutionary Era laws from various states required military aged men to periodically meet for inspection and training.
The fight isn't if some form of training can be legally required, it is the extent of the training and to limit it to public carry.
 
I remember few years ago coming across copies of early colonial New England town ordinances requiring the possession and maintenance of firearm, ball, and powder. This was later referenced in 2A as the regulation requirement which meant simply (at that time) properly supplied. There were regulations requiring able bodied men to possess and maintain weapons of war on the books even at the state level in Massachusetts at the time of the Pequot war. https://history.army.mil/reference/mamil/mamil.htm

Well regulated was a term clearly understood by all at the time that in order to promote the raising of militia for the common defense it was necessary for individuals "to keep and bear arms". The militias themselves had been organized by statue years before that conflict but those militias were called up from individual citizens who were required to maintain the equipment of war privately.

The earliest ordinances controlling firearms in places like the Town of Boston spoke only of not storing loaded firearms inside buildings unattended because of a perceived threat to people fighting fires. There no regulations concerning carrying loaded fire arms in the town. There were laws prohibiting hunting and target practice in town to avoid the threat of injury to unintended targets but again it was expected people would go armed for self defense in town and discharging weapons in such extreme emergencies was not prohibited.

I remember a high school history teacher explaining that in the old English vernacular, well regulated meant well equipped, and that the militia was every able bodied man over the age of 17.
 
No, the 2nd's prefatory clause calls out the need for a trained, disciplined and armed populous.
Revolutionary Era laws from various states required military aged men to periodically meet for inspection and training.
And have those laws been rescinded?
Last I checked the Militia Law was still on the books....
 
Or for speech or for invoking the 5th, 4th etc..
Actually the courts have screwed us on the 4th and 5th
For both you need to affirmatively assert your rights in a relatively specific manner in order to preserve your rights.
The correct method requires a small amount of training but isn't something people even realize they need to know.
 
Most of the specific ones were probably local ordinances that became moot when they established the National Guard, if not before.
Not what I asked though.
There are a lot of short bus, window licking laws from ye days of yore still on the books. A law may become irrelevant, but it is still a law unless rescinded.
 
And have those laws been rescinded?
Last I checked the Militia Law was still on the books....
Does it matter to the subject at hand?

I'm not certain if you are trying to argue that training shouldn't be required or if my evaluation of the situation is wrong.

Let's get my position straight
I am a 2nd amendment absolutist.
All laws covering the possession and carry of arms are an infringement.

If you believe my evaluation of the courts position is wrong, I have no issue with that - just explain what in the case documentation I'm misinterpreting.
 
Does it matter to the subject at hand?

I'm not certain if you are trying to argue that training shouldn't be required or if my evaluation of the situation is wrong.

Let's get my position straight
I am a 2nd amendment absolutist.
All laws covering the possession and carry of arms are an infringement.

If you believe my evaluation of the courts position is wrong, I have no issue with that - just explain what in the case documentation I'm misinterpreting.
Nope, you are right? Maybe? I'm just trying to hash it out.

The judge framing the RO and some of Bruen may be argued wrong depending on historical precedent for what training consists of.
1) Laws regarding training requirements to be members of the Militia MAY have existed. And likely still does. However, as we know, that is the prefatory clause. See 2.
2) The right to keep and bear arms, as affirmed previously by the USSC (Heller), does not exist SOLELY as a requirement to be a member of the militia.

So training could be constitutional to be in the militia, but not for keeping and bearing arms.
 
Not what I asked though.
There are a lot of short bus, window licking laws from ye days of yore still on the books. A law may become irrelevant, but it is still a law unless rescinded.

Not even slightly true.

If a local ordinance is overriden by a state law, or a state law by a federal law, that local/state ordinance is not enforceable unless the higher law is repealed whether the lower ordinance has been formally rescinded or not. If you're waiting around for the state/feds to abolish the National Guard, you're going to be waiting a long long time.
 
Not even slightly true.

If a local ordinance is overriden by a state law, or a state law by a federal law, that local/state ordinance is not enforceable unless the higher law is repealed whether it's been formally rescinded or not. If you're waiting around for the state/feds to abolish the National Guard, you're going to be waiting a long long time.
Maybe I wasn't specific enough.
Bruen wants HISTORICAL PRECEDENT.
 
Maybe I wasn't specific enough.
Bruen wants HISTORICAL PRECEDENT.

I know, and that's the problem (from our perspective): the historical precedents for things like required training, safe storage, and safety instruction? Those probably exist, in those very local ordinances you're talking about. We can't wish them away, any more than the antis can wish away the second amendment: we have to deal with them, because we live in the real world. Not the world as it "should be."
 
I know, and that's the problem (from our perspective): the historical precedents for things like required training, safe storage, and safety instruction? Those probably exist, in those very local ordinances you're talking about. We can't wish them away, any more than the antis can wish away the second amendment: we have to deal with them, because we live in the real world. Not the world as it "should be."
Again, it's circular.
If training was required, it was likely specifically for the militia.
But Heller states that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and separate from the militia.
This means that in order for training to be used in a historical precedent they would have to acknowledge the need for a militia as well, which they will never do.
 
Again, it's circular.
If training was required, it was likely specifically for the militia.
But Heller states that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and separate from the militia.
This means that in order for training to be used in a historical precedent they would have to acknowledge the need for a militia as well, which they will never do.
Unfortunately that's not the position the lower court seems to be taking. While that could change, I don't think it will.
Too many people, including a large percentage of gun owners, feel you should be required to take formal training before you are allowed to own, never mind carry in public.
This carries over to the courts where they don't like one sided decisions (especially against the state) and tend to offer at some small offering to the loser. The offering will be training.

Yes, the prefatory clause is specifically tied to militia. Unfortunately our side been arguing that that doesn't matter because even if the 2nd is for militia, the militia is the whole of the people.
Don't try to link militia with military or national guard - we've been fighting against that for years so we don't want to get struck down by our own logic.
Militia is the citizens taking up arms to protect their family, their town, their state and then country. They are not enlisted, commissioned or conscripted as that would place them as military.

Tradition contemporary to the founding was that all able bodied men would be trained in the use of arms. Most would learn as part of their culture and some would further their knowledge with formal training. But that doesn't change that training, formal or not, was part of cultural tradition until the middle 20th century for most Americans.
Remember, this only applies to those states that require training so the bar will likely only change further better.

My thought is that we should be arguing that because tradition was mainly informal training then demonstrated knowledge in basic safety, handling and marksmanship should be the standard not simply the completion of a commercial course (which will be abused)
 
My thought is that we should be arguing that because tradition was mainly informal training then demonstrated knowledge in basic safety, handling and marksmanship should be the standard not simply the completion of a commercial course (which will be abused)

One hopes it will be the least intrusive process possible, from both a time and money perspective. Exemptions ought to be easy to get: not just veterans, but ANYONE who's ever held a hunting license, been a boy scout, etc. ANY degree of prior firearms training.
 
In the RO. Which is preliminary and not a judgement of the facts of the case.
Meaning, the judge looked at very little evidence, used his discretionary judgement and said yeah, that ain't gonna fly. A smart lawyer will show that prior to the inception of the NRA there was no formal education in the use of firearms provided to the GP / members of the militia.
Have you read the briefs? The judge has a significant amount of information at hand at this point.
And your point of no formal training before the NRA is simply incorrect. There were private military schools to go along with the state required militia drilling.
 
One hopes it will be the least intrusive process possible, from both a time and money perspective. Exemptions ought to be easy to get: not just veterans, but ANYONE who's ever held a hunting license, been a boy scout, etc. ANY degree of prior firearms training.
You mean the org that prohibits any use of handguns in scouting activities other than the LE Explorers program?
 
Back
Top Bottom