Analyzing The 2nd Amendment

OUTDOORSBEST ^ | July 16, 2004 | Don B. Kates

[neverdem]

BANG

[Puppage]

Does the Second Amendment guarantee a right to states rather than an individual right to choose to own firearms?

The Bill of Rights.....are they rights of the state? Are they all OF, FOR & BY the people...everyone of them EXCEPT the 2nd?

This tired argument doesn't hold water. Besides, THE PEOPLE were/are THE MILITIA.

[Puppage]

...further. Does the First Amendment give the STATE the right to free speech, or the People,hmm?

[rhombus]

LIMITS ON THE AMENDMENT The Amendment covers only small arms. Neither RPGs, cannons, grenades nor the other super-destructive devices of modern war are covered.

I'm not sure where the Constitution specifies "small arms". Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?

[Dead Corpse]

The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.
John Jay, Federalist No. 2, 1787

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."
-Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers

On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823

Civilian merchant ships had cannons. Gatling and full auto guns weren't "restricted" until the NFA of '34. I'd say the 2nd Amendment covers quite a bit more than just rifles, pistols, and edged weapons.

[rjsimmons]

Something that is ignored, time and time again, is that the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, does not GRANT rights, it prevents the Federal Government from infringing upon EXISTING rights.

[the OlLine Rebel]

ping later

[Dead Corpse]

Was private ownership of cannons permitted by the founders?

Yes. The letter of Marque and Reprisal against the Barbary Pirates was to authorize the Federal Government to PAY privateers, share in the spoils, and to allow them to "hunt" pirates legally. Those letters quite clearly did not, as some here have suggested, make it legal for them to arm their ships in the first place. In fact, the reason the FedGov hired so many privateers was BECAUSE they were already armed.

[rjsimmons]

The term arms is very specific in the language of the days that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, they are a little more ambiguous today, but still mean the same to those in the know. Once a firearm reaches a certain calibre, it no longer falls into the arms definition, but then becomes ordnance. A cannon falls into this latter definition. The same is true for items like RPGs, bombs, nuclear weapons, etc.

[DumpsterDiver]

the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, does not GRANT rights, it prevents the Federal Government from infringing upon EXISTING rights.

I agree!

Taking it to the Supreme Court!
http://www.jerseygop.com/freeman_02.htm

In 2001, in the case of U.S. v. Emerson, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi) ruled that firearms ownership is an individual right, subject to certain reasonable restrictions. This ruling was handed down a few months after Attorney General, John Ashcroft, issued a public statement announcing that the Second Amendment clearly protects the right of individual(s) to keep and bear arms. A writ of certiorari for a Supreme Court hearing was denied for this case.

In 2002, in the case of Silveira v. Lockyer, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii) rendered a ruling that the Second Amendment does NOT apply to individuals.

We now have a situation where the law of the land in the Fifth Circuit is diametrically opposed to the law in the Ninth Circuit. Considering that this is a federal Bill of Rights issue, it is in the best interest of our nation for the Supreme Court to render a final ruling that applies to all.

Snip

[rhombus]

Once a firearm reaches a certain calibre, it no longer falls into the arms definition, but then becomes ordnance.

So the Green Mountain boys captured ordnance from Fort Ti... not arms?

[Zavien Doombringer]

I would have to say, yes to Ordnance and arms. Canon are ordnance, muskets are arms...

[rhombus]

Canon are ordnance, muskets are arms...

Then you would agree that the 2nd Amendment does not address cannons at all? Others on this thread have disagreed.

[Euro-American Scum]

Bump for future reference.

[rjsimmons]

QUOTE

So the Green Mountain boys captured ordnance from Fort Ti... not arms?

Yup. Ordnance. Not Arms.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Keep reading, Pup.

[Dead Corpse]

So the "guns" on Privateer ships were more properly "ordnance"? And yet they were still legal to buy and own.

The Second is broader in scope than that...

[Puppage]

Oh,I have. I was just scream'n about that first line. I hear it ALL the time.