Did LHO know how to drive? Does it matter?

[John Mytton]

Mass shootings are rare. 99.999% of Americans shouldn't suffer because of them.

If mass shootings are rare then obviously you don't need a gun for protection, so tell us why do you need a gun?

JohnM

[Mitch Todd]

10 years after Heller: Fiery gun rights rhetoric, but courts back Second Amendment limits ( Link )

In days past, the "militia" referred to usually took the form of the National Guard. In 2008, the Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment did cover the individual. But they didn't say the "right" was absolute, as the NRA and a few gun nuts might like people to think.

You quoted a op-ed by guys identified as "Eric Tirschwell is the director of litigation and national enforcement policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, and Mark Falsetto is senior counsel, Second Amendment litigation for Everytown." Probably not the most highly extremely unbiased dogs in the fight.

And your take on what the word "militia" has previously meant is wrong. We know what the Founding-Father types thought the word meant because they defined it in the Militia Act of 1792. It assigned to the militia "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia." 18th century commentators like Spooner (no, not Spat thooner, the other one) understood that the militia was something that was formed organically from the people from the bottom up.

And every one of these guys "shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball"

Every man between 18 and 45 was not only allowed to possess firearms, they were required to possess them, Swiss style!

"Militia" being therefore definedvery broadly, the 2nd amendment goes on to say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The Heller decision turns on fact that, when the Constitution says "the people," it really does mean "the people" and not "the States" or "the government." The guys who wrote the Constitution feared what they called "the Mob." But they feared tyranny radiating from centralized power even more. That fear informs the structure of the Federal government from the basement up. It's why there are three explicit branches of government entwined in a tangle of checks and balances. And why they wanted a small army that could only be funded one year at a time and very large militia.

[Mitch Todd]

Is anyone really unbiased?

No. But, so far as bias goes, there's a mighty gulf separating "anyone" from paid activists.

We know what the Founding-Father types thought the word meant because they defined it in the Militia Act of 1792. It assigned to the militia "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia."

Who would be under the control of a "Uniform Militia", sometimes called an early National Guard. They would only be enrolled "when called out to exercise, or into service".

Which is beside the point. The Militia Act of 1792 defines "the militia" as, essentially, every able-bodied free man. That's what they were thinking of when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

The sole purpose of the Act was to create state militias, at least theoretically. There was no penalty in the Act for non-compliance. Estimates of compliance go as low as 10%.

No. States already had their own militias, ones that generally existed before the Revolution itself. But that's also beside the point. As far as we are concerned,  and I know I'm being tedious and repetitive here, but the MAo1792 defines the militia and opens a window into the minds of the guys who wrote the Bill of Rights as to what they mean by "militia."

Weapons were a major expense at the time.

Automobiles and other motor vehicles are a major expense now. That doesn't prevent most Americans from owning at least one.

And the Militia Act of 1903 repealed the 1792 Act, defining the militia as Unorganized (able-bodied men 17-45 who might be called up, I guess, with whatever arms they owned) and Organized (the National Guard). The Guard was to modernize, standardize, and have more interaction with the US Army. This is the era I was referring to with "in past days".

That era wasn't the one that produced the second amendment, though. The argument over the the meaning of "militia" must not only begin with the 1792 act, but also center around it. Even then, as Scalia notes, bearing arms is a right given directly to the people. There were reasons for that. Someone can argue that it's an obsolete notion, but the remedy is via democratic activity and Constitutional amendment rather than by trying to twist words around.

[John Iacoletti]

Perhaps the gun control debate would be better conducted in the Off Topic section?

[Rob Caprio]

What does having a "ride" to do with leaving the rifle?  If Oswald had a car, was he going to carry his rifle down the stairs and out of the building to the parking lot?  LOL.  Very funny.  Isn't it a better question why his rifle was found in the building and your hero was making tracks like the place was on fire?

Why couldn't he have disassembled the rifle first? You laugh at this idea, but fully support the WC's claim that he brought in a disassembled rifle to his place of work with NO supporting evidence.  What's the difference?

[Rob Caprio]

You have had 50+ plus years to have made that decision with the benefit of hindsight.  Baker was making decisions on the fly.  He ran into a building, encountered a guy in the lunch room who was vouched for as an employee, and made the understandable decision in that moment to move on to the upper floors where the shots came from.  There was no other patrolman to instruct to detain Oswald even if he had any cause to do so.

But why did Baker pull a gun on LHO? Why didn't he pull a gun on anyone else in the TSBD? What was so suspicious about standing in a lunchroom near a vending machine on the second floor?

[Rob Caprio]

From what I've read, the courts have long held that in "exigent" or emergency situations that people's Fourth Amendment rights against illegal searches and seizures can be suspended.

This is clearly for me one of those instances. Was Baker supposed to get a search warrant? Stop and ask Oswald questions?

Although who knows what the Oswald defenders will say in response. It's always a crapshoot.

But why LHO? What made him stand out in a second floor lunchroom? Why did no one else warrant Baker's attention like this inside the TSBD?