So, Lets say the Second amendment gets reinterpreted by SCOTUS

[IndyDave1776]

All I can say is we should each strive to maintain real contact and friendship with the members of our military. If guns are to be forcibly confiscated you can bet the military will be needed and used.
Whether the average soldier is willing to obey such an unconstitutional order will be of paramount importance, and if the common soldier has lost touch with the common man the results could be catastrophic

OK, that is an easy problem for the other team to fix. Use blue helmets from one of the third-world septic pits which have become the modern analog to the German local lords, like those in Hesse, who farmed out their young men as mercenaries. Just as we faced Hessians during the revolution, we could easily face a swarm of Ethiopians, Bangledeshis, Indians, Liberians, inter alia. I am not saying that it will happen, but it is definitely a possibility that should not be discounted.

 

[trucker777]

Fixy

Ah yes, of course...lol

 

[edporch]

A common argument of the far left against gun ownership is that the second amendment is being read wrong (because comma's are hard). But lets play the "what if" game and say they won. In a 5-4 decision the Supreme court decides that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to individuals only to well regulated Militia. By the end of the day Congress the the prez pass a law outlawing individual gun ownership outright.

So here is my question, how does the "well regulated militia" apply to the states?

Would Indiana's current laws be enough to protect that states gun owners? Specifically, Indiana code 10-16-6-2 section 1: "The sedentary militia consists of all persons subject to bear arms under the Constitution of the State of Indiana who do not belong to the national guard."

"Well regulated" in the late 1700's meant in good working order, properly equipped.
Another argument for the "originalist" method of interpreting laws.

Actually, in the time the 2nd Amendment was created, each state had it's own army.

All the 2nd Amendment really says is that the federal government cannot regulate arms, and only each state can make it's own laws with regard to arms.

 

[rob63]

FWIW, I would not be surprised at some sort of executive action that expands the 1932 NFA to include "Semi-Auto Assault Rifles." They have already confused most people as to the difference between a semi-auto and a machine gun, how hard would it be to make is sound acceptable to the general populace? It would allow for immediate registration, ban of further manufacture, and background checks/taxes for transfers. No new law or supreme court case needed, and an easy sell to the uninformed who would consider it quite reasonable to simply add another class of dangerous weapons to an existing law. How common are unregistered machine guns today? Eventually, unregistered "assault rifles" would be just as rare, just a couple of generations.

 

[printcraft]

OK, that is an easy problem for the other team to fix. Use blue helmets from one of the third-world septic pits which have become the modern analog to the German local lords, like those in Hesse, who farmed out their young men as mercenaries. Just as we faced Hessians during the revolution, we could easily face a swarm of Ethiopians, Bangledeshis, Indians, Liberians, inter alia. I am not saying that it will happen, but it is definitely a possibility that should not be discounted.

Bonus.

 

[BugI02]

OK, that is an easy problem for the other team to fix. Use blue helmets from one of the third-world septic pits which have become the modern analog to the German local lords, like those in Hesse, who farmed out their young men as mercenaries. Just as we faced Hessians during the revolution, we could easily face a swarm of Ethiopians, Bangledeshis, Indians, Liberians, inter alia. I am not saying that it will happen, but it is definitely a possibility that should not be discounted.

So you're saying buy more 5.56 and 7.62 then

 

[actaeon277]

And what has the UN been able to accomplish without the US?

 

[IndyDave1776]

And what has the UN been able to accomplish without the US?

They prefer using our resources, but when push comes to shove, particularly in our own bad straits, the globalists will find the resources to pay the mercenaries, especially if they are at the head of our own government, which would be the case under the situation of our Constitution being ignored wholesale by our own government.

 

[Nazgul]

It's all camo now man. Well, I still prefer khaki. The lines in a potential future internal conflict will be much messier than the last. They will drawn around metropolitan vs rural areas and in many places neighbor vs neighbor.

Bingo, Thor hit it.

Those that live by entitlement, those that can provide.

Don

 

[LPMan59]

It may be different in other states, but: here in Indiana, who would the State get to carry out enforcement of such laws?

The police.

oh the crowing I heard about how cops wouldn't enforce the NY SAFE Act, especially in the more conservative north.

turns out they will enforce it.

Cops here would enforce it when it's their job, their house, their life on the line.

 

[rugertoter]

Get out and vote in November, even if "your guy" does not get the nomination. You all know what the other side will do for sure.

 

[jamil]

So you're saying buy more 5.56 and 7.62 then

Okay. I'm on it.

 

[BugI02]

There might be entrepreneurial $$$ to be made on silhouette targets featuring a blue helmet (with add'l 10-ring?)

 

[Ddillard]

So much like prohibition, it will be unenforceable as to make a difference. As Andrew Jackson told SCOTUS on their ruling of native affairs, "...you have ruled, now enforce it!"--"One Man's Opinion!"

 

[GIJEW]

I understood the OPs question as being: if the SCOTUS redefines the 2A as being about states maintaining a militia, are we covered by the Indiana constitution defining us as the militia?

IMO
1)the right to arms--like many rights listed in the BOR--predates the Constitution and the revolution. The 2A doesn't "grant" us anything, it AFFIRMS a right that already existed.

2)IANAL but I can read. Art.1, sec. 10 of the Constitution says "The states shall not maintain troops or ships of war in time of peace unless they be in imminent danger, which shall not admit of delay, or Congress shall approve". In other words the militia in the 2A could not have been a unit of government, but "the people". The same "the people mentioned in the 2A and the rest of the BOR.

3)The founders explicitly said that our right to arms was to be one of the checks-and-balances of our political system--a safeguard against tyranny by the government. Given that, saying that the 2A is some "communal right" allowing the state a monopoly on violence/force, is communist sounding, Orwellian double-talk.

IMO the bottom line is, it doesn't matter if SCOTUS makes that claim or if pols edit our right to arms out of the BOR. The right isn't dependent on being in the BOR or what SCOTUS says about it anymore than our right to freedom of speech or concience. And if they try--viewing the Constitution as a contract under whose terms we grant them the authority to govern, and the BOR as an addendum for those who don't get it--they will be in breach of contract and their authority will be null and void.

Whether the people will be willing to enforce the contract is another matter.