大美司法：rebellion or insurrection

来源: 于 2026-01-29 10:03:30 [博客] [旧帖] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读：次
While the?Second Amendment?of the?US Constitution?protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes like self-defense, using those arms to resist or attack the government is legally classified as?rebellion or insurrection.?
Key points regarding this legal distinction:
  • Individual Right for Self-Defense:?In?District of Columbia v. Heller?(2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, primarily?self-defense?within the home.
  • Constitutional Checks on Rebellion:?The Constitution explicitly gives Congress the power to "provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,?suppress Insurrections?and repel Invasions" (Article I, Section 8). This means the same document that protects gun rights also provides for the military suppression of armed revolt.
  • Federal Anti-Insurrection Laws:?Under?18 U.S. Code § 2383, inciting, assisting, or engaging in a rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and disqualification from holding public office.
  • Historical Context:?While some Founding-era figures viewed an armed citizenry as a "bulwark against tyranny", modern legal consensus and Supreme Court rulings focus the amendment's protection on?personal protection?rather than a legal right to violent political revolution.
  • The Insurrection Act:?This federal law allows the President to deploy the military domestically to suppress "unlawful obstructions" or "rebellion" against federal authority

?

?

?

Landmark Supreme Court Cases
The following cases have established the modern legal boundaries of the Second Amendment:?
  • District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): This was the first ruling to confirm the Second Amendment protects an?individual right?to keep and bear arms. However, the Court clarified that this right is "not unlimited" and is primarily for lawful purposes like?self-defense within the home.
  • McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): Reaffirmed the individual right for self-defense and applied it to state and local governments. It also noted that the government may still impose "reasonable" restrictions on firearm possession.
  • United States v. Miller (1939): Held that weapons not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" (like sawed-off shotguns) are not protected. The Court used this to justify federal regulation of specific types of firearms.
  • Presser v. Illinois (1886): Established that states can prohibit private groups from parading or drilling with arms, as the Amendment does not grant individuals the right to form their own?unauthorized militias.?
?
The Insurrection Act of 1807
The?Insurrection Act?is the primary legal mechanism the government uses to suppress armed uprisings.?
  1. Presidential Power: It authorizes the President to deploy the U.S. military domestically to suppress "rebellion" or "domestic violence".
  2. Exception to Posse Comitatus: It serves as the main exception to the?Posse Comitatus Act, which normally forbids federal troops from performing domestic law enforcement.
  3. Specific Triggers: Deployment can be triggered if a state governor requests help, or if the President determines that federal laws are being obstructed or citizens' constitutional rights are being deprived.
  4. Historical Use: It has been used for everything from suppressing Nat Turner's Rebellion (1831) to enforcing?school desegregation?in the 1950s (Little Rock Nine) and quelling the 1992 Los Angeles riots



更多我的博客文章>>>