[NovemberCharlie]

Part 2: The Natural Right of Self-Defense, The Common Law Right of Arms.

CITED AUTHORITIES

Each of the Authorities listed has bearing on the Right to Arms that We, the People of the United States, commonly held to be ours at the ratifications of the Constitution of the United States and of the Bill of Rights, which Right to Arms this statute violates.

It is a mistake to study the statute in abstraction of the right it violates; doing so invites legislative re-instantiation of the purpose of the statute as if to address a feature of its implementation. It is the purpose of this statute, which is disarmament of the citizens, that is unconstitutional.

Therefore, while these Authorities address clauses of the Constitution of the United States, state and federal statutory and case law constructions, stare decisis, and the like, they start with a study of the Right that is by this statute destroyed.

Taken together, these Authorities show

• that this Right to Arms was considered fundamental, natural, individual, and uninfringeable by federal, state, or local government, which is the matter at bar;
• that this Right to Arms included personal possession of privately owned handguns, which is the particular of the statute at bar.

The Authorities are grouped by type, and (usually) by order of occurrence within that type, and are not to be construed as in an order of precedence, dependency, or priority.

Of primary importance is to note: The Right to Arms does not arise from the Constitutions, nor their Amendments, nor the laws and the judgements, and is not dependant on these instruments for it's existence. Rather, the Constitution and everything under it arose by our Arms clearing the King's government off this land. No power or authority constituted under the Consent of the People of the United States, or any of them, has ever been given wherewith to reduce the Right to Arms; only individuals can, by personal misconduct, alienate this right from themselves by destroying the trust their fellow citizens can have in them. Therefore, the statute at bar is unconstitutional and void -->

We made clear, by ratifying Amendment 2 to the Constitution of the United States, that where the powers assigned to the Government intersect with our peaceable exercise of our Right to Arms, the personal, individual Right to Arms shall prevail.

Defendants declare the trees, and call upon the Court to behold the forest.

1. Rights

   A state cannot impose a license, tax, or fee on a constitutionally protected right. Murdock vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105 (1942)

   Can the same state simply prohibit the exercise of that right, and convert that right into a crime? Brunner vs. New York

   1. The Natural Right of Self Defense ("...security of a free state...").

      Applicability: No statute obstructing this right has legitimacy. This statute does obstruct the right of self defense. This statute must go. We hold them to be insane who will not act, if they can, to resist mortal peril. We recognize this right of self defense for old and young, noble and vile. We except from this right only those who merit death for their own deeds (which is the root of the word felony, it's root being felo de se or "dead of it's own hand"). Self defense is neither a legal act, nor an illegal act; when arms speak, laws are silent (Cicero). -->

      Our laws and judgements reflect this right. No law can be made or enforced which requires of the people that they surrender the right of self defense United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Panter, 688 F.2d 268 (5th Cir. 1982). Both are cases where Federal criminal convictions for Felon With A Gun were annulled by reason of self-defense. The felons were under violent assault, or credible threat against their lives, and in peril of their lives; they had sought all the help available, and had no luck getting Police protection in time; and a firearm was available to them through other persons in their critical moment. They took "temporary possession" for the time of peril, and cannot, per the federal Appellate Courts, be punished for it notwithstanding the federal law punishing felons for possession of firearms has no exception for self-defense. No exception in the law is required, because self defense cannot be made into a crime, and possession of forbidden weapons cannot be punished when possessed in the action of self-defense. That was the central holding in these above two cases.

      Citizens of New York, by comparison, are forbidden to possess handguns; therefore we cannot have them around in our moment of extreme need. This statute forbids possession of the most legitimate means of self defense.

      • First, we are ordered disarmed by this statute, and punished severely if we arm ourselves. This is the same as for Felons in other states, after they have been convicted of a felony.
      • Second we can beg permission to be allowed to arm ourselves. This permission is not guaranteed, even to law abiding people, and has been denied over so small and involuntary a condition as a skin disease (psoriasis) which prevented taking legible finger prints. This denial was appealed, and the denial was upheld (Parker v. Nestasi 2 Dept 1983 97 AD2d 547,467 NYS2d 906, Aff 62 NY2d 714,476 NYS2d 538,465 NE2d 45). Felons also can beg to be restored to their rights, but such trivia as psoriasis are not disqualifiers.
      • Third, our permission, if granted, may be revoked at any time, or it's renewal denied, so we must live ready to hand our firearms over to the State. Handgun permits in New York can be denied, or their renewal denied, for such vague and overbroad criteria as being adjudged "not of good moral character" by the Licensing Officer. Felons, once restored, remain restored until they disqualify themselves again by conviction for another felony crime.
      • Fourth, we are not guaranteed compensation for our property interest should we find this permission denied or revoked. Since a Felon's rights, once restored, are not revocable, nor does renewal apply, this burden does not exist for them, absent a subsequent felony conviction.

      In Summary, Felons in other states have more liberty, regarding handguns, than do honest New Yorkers. They have to be convicted of a felony crime before they can be disarmed. We're born that way. Once restored to their Right of Arms, they remain that way barring a subsequent felony conviction. We have no such promise. Since many State employees are exempt from § 400 permit requirements, and may possess handguns without permit and without fear of arrest or prosecution (such persons are referred to hereafter as favored persons), their right of self-defense is measurably greater (significantly less destroyed) than ours, showing this statute to violate Amendment 14 § 1 sentence 2 cl 3 "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Argument is raised by the State that favored persons have a duty by reason of which they are armed of necessity, and that the permit requirements of this statute would, if enforced upon them, compromise their capacity to perform their duty. First: there is no law, nor any duty peculiar to favored persons, whose enforcement or performance requires the presence or presentation of a firearm; these favored persons are excused in presenting or using their firearms only in self defense. Thus, the duty of these favored persons which justifies their possession of firearms without permit, is the duty of self defense. We also have a duty of self defense, and this statute compromises our capacity to carry this duty into effect. Not only should we be as favored as the favored persons by reason of the 14th Amendment §1 sentence 2 cl 3 ("nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"), but because we have the same duty of self defense as the favored persons in consideration of which they are permitted without permit to possess firearms and bear them upon their persons. -->

      Some facetiously assert that other weapons can provide the defense of self and home in lieu of handguns ("Let them eat cake" becomes "Let them wield shotguns"). Debra Brunner, a defendant in this case, is normally 105 pounds, and not able to wield most shotguns merely for their size and weight; lighter and smaller shotguns, even if legal, would have too great a recoil, but this is the smaller of the problems: In any emergency, Debra has only one hand with which to wield the weapon of defense, the other hand holds either a telephone or a 3-year-old, or both. Therefore, by definition, her right of self-defense, if she is to realize it, requires a one-hand-gun. Her .357mag revolver firing .38spl ammunition (or similar moderate powered pistol cartridge in a moderate weight handgun) is what the enjoyment of this most vital of all rights requires. As this statute makes a crime of possession of any one-hand-gun, Defendant(s) must desert their right of self-defense, or dare defiance of this statute.

      There is no right higher than that of self-defense; therefore, whatever rights we reserved to ourselves under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the right of Self defense must be acknowledged as the first of them.

      This statute places an onerous burden on the right of Self Defense, violating the Ninth Amendment, and is therefore unconstitutional.

   2. The Common Law Right to Arms ("...security of a free state...").

      Essential to understanding either the American Revolution or the Constitution and it's Amendments, is understanding the shift in sovereignty from King to Commoner; the common law rights were touchstone to this struggle.

      New York State Civil Rights Law § 2 declares Supreme sovereignty in the people. No authority can, on any pretence whatsoever, be exercised over the citizens of this state, but such as is or shall be derived from and granted by the people of this state. This is a limitation placed upon the state that it governs only by "the Consent of the Governed" (cf. Decl of Independence). The people do not consent to reduction of their rights under the common law, which are preserved them generally by the Constitution of the United States Amendment 9, and particularly the Right of Arms by Amendment 2 (which is echoed in New York Civil Rights Law § 4 A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. This statute reduces the common law right to arms, in defiance of these Amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and New York State Civil Rights Law §§ 2 & 4; it is unconstitutional and void.

      The Common Law

      New York, as a state, came into existance by the will of the people to establish a government to protect their rights under the common law. Most states put some of these rights into a declaration or bill of rights in their constitution. New York did not, nor was doing to necessary. These common law rights are what the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution references: "The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others, retained by the people." For a State to make a crime of the common law rights it was established to protect, is for a dog to rend and mangle the child it was bought and trained to protect. Betrayal by any other name...

      The Common Law was Sacrosanct

      It cannot be stressed too much, that we overthrew a tyrant, not to make room for a new tyrant, but to replace His Arrogant Majesty and His tyrannical government with a new scheme calculated to preserve and enlarge our common law rights. When we overthrew the King, we annulled His statutes. Did we then have no laws? We had the States, but they were creations of the King. The common man chose to make new governments (geographically aligned with the Kings grants and charters, but that was a convenience, not something we could not have changed), and charged these governments with the duty to bear lively and tender conscience to our common law rights, to protect them with statutes, and to enforce those protections with prosecutions against those who violated these statutes. If you can imagine to yourself a people who would abolish their own liberty by authorizing a government to reduce and destroy their own rights, and you've imagined a people vain and foolish, fit to be slaves, who never would have thrown off the tyranny of their King, because He was doing an excellent job of reducing their rights at the time. The fact that we threw down the King for the cause that he invaded our common law rights, and deserted them to invasion by others is proof that the governments we established had no authority to reduce our common law rights.

      The Common Law Right to Arms

      Sir William Blackstone, the English Jurist who put the English common law in print, said of the common law rights: That there are three great rights: Personal Security, Personal Liberty, and Private Property; there are five auxiliary rights necessary for the protection of the Three Great rights, the fifth

      is that of having arms for their defence. ... And, lastly, to vindicate these rights (the three great rights and the other 4 auxiliary rights), when actually violated or attacked, ... [we] are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the Courts of Law; next, to the right of petitioning ... for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.   Blackstone, 1:144

      The debates on the notion of revolution against our King, the proper organization of states, of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, and on the subject of ratification of the Constitution and a Bill of Rights, all took Blackstone's commentaries on the common law as it were Holy Scriptures of Political Thought. Nobody commented "Except the 'guns' part" for roughly 160 years (1775 - 1934).

      High on our list of grievances against our King was his disarmament of the citizenry. We intended to be, and to remain, armed. We considered the Right of Arms an inalienable and fundamental right, invaded only by tyrants, who, by virtue of that invasion, were fit to be shot.

      St George Tucker, who put the American common law to print in the form of commentaries on Blackstone's commentaries, said it thus:

      Whenever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.    1 Blackstone, Commentaries, St Geo. Tucker ed. 1803 pp300, see app.

      Invasions of the Right of Arms

      There have been disarmament statutes amongst us from the Kings to the Colonies to the States to the United States. The catalog of these laws is long, and irrelevant. Such laws all were aimed at keeping the poor powerless, keeping the despised subjugated, and keeping the powerful armed and unchallengeable. Such laws were enforceable in the United States only by the hand of vain pride & racist prejudice. Such laws became unenforceable in the United States or any of them, with the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

      English laws, at times, restricted crossbows and firearms to landed gentry of moderate or greater wealth, a system similar to New York's pistol permits being freely accessible to wealthy and favored persons in counties with few other permits granted, but deniable to anybody under the blanket of the "good moral character" clause.

      Colonial laws forbade Negroes, Mulattos, and Indians to possess arms, and put severe restrictions on their possession of the same. Laws pronounced heavy penalties on selling or providing arms to these despised peoples, but allowed white citizens full freedom to acquire, keep, and bear arms, and even required by law that they do so, similar to New York's system of permitting without permit that LEOs, Judges, and other favored persons may possess pistols, while laying heavy penalties on the common folk who should do the same without permit, and making such permits generally available to favored persons whilst generally denying the rest of the people.

      Reconstruction era laws (1865 - 1875) in the Southern States, forbidding all but certain models of pistols, which happen to be large, expensive, and militiary, effectively disarmed the poor and especially disarming those excluded by Statute or Tradition from Police & Militia organizations (the Negro Freedmen) This is reminiscent of New York's practice of gracing few common folk with permits to bear as well as keep their handguns, whilst permitting without permit that favored persons may travel throughout the State with their arms on their persons. Did we overthrow formal Titles of Nobility, only to instantiate the same effect with badges and robes? Such laws are untenable, generally, under the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment § 1 sentence 2 clause 2, and are explicitly defiant of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment § 1 sentence 2 clause 3 "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

      The 39th Congress (1866-1867) considered disarmament laws, both those expressly racist and those which were enforced with racial bias or racist effect to be badges of slavery. They wrote the 14th Amendment to render all disarmament laws (in fact all such badges of slavery) unconstitutional. This statute is a disarmament statute, and is (barring the definition of who is Black) exactly the kind the 39th Congress had in mind to destroy in proposing the 14th Amendment.

      Historical Revisionism against the common law

      Modern-day legal "scholars" bend history to invent an "ancient tradition" of forbidding arms. Forest and Game laws, which reserved the privilege of hunting to the wealthy (see preceding paragraphs touching upon favored persons), are one group of cites. Such laws are repugnant to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

      The Statute of Northampton (1328) is another favorite cite. Revisionists portray this law as forbidding carrying arms in public to the common man. It forbade riding about armed in terrorem populi (to the terror of the people) on pain of forfeiture of arms and armor, and commitment to prison. This is much like the statute at bar except we don't need to scare anybody to be threatened with forfeiture and jail. Sir John Knight came to bar to answer the charge of violating the Statute of Northampton for walking about town with handguns on his person, and was acquitted (Rex v. Knight 1686) because he was armed but not seeking to terrify the people.

      William Hawkins, in Treatise of the Pleas of the Crown wrote of Rex v. Knight:

      No wearing of arms is within the meaning of this statute unless it be accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people; from when it seems clearly to follow, that persons of quality are in no danger of offending against this statute by wearing common weapons, or having their usual number of attendants with them for their ornament or defence, in such place, and upon such occasions, in which it is the common fashion to make use of them, without causing the least suspicions of an intention to commit any act of violence or disturbance of the peace. And from the same ground it also follows, that persons armed with privy coats of mail, to the intent to defend themselves against their adversaries, are not withing the meaning of the statute, because they do nothing in terrorem populi.

      This shows rather clearly that being armed and armored is a right under the English common law, not an offense; terrifying or killing (or anything between) is. The Statute of Northampton had the intent of punishing the intimidation of witnesses, Jurors, Courts, or officers of the Crown, whether by actual or threatened violence, and is a parallel to our statutes punishing gang or Mafia violence or harrassment of witnesses, jurors, Court officers, or investigators. -->

      Throughout the history of English and American common law, political commentators supportive of Liberty spoke highly of an armed citizenry. Acts and speeches against the citizens keeping their own arms come only from apologists for Absolute Monarchy, who were alone in saying the government should have a monopoly on force (only Police and Soldiers have arms), or that the government should have a prerogative on the franchise of arms (able to grant or deny permits without which we are not at liberty to be armed). Disarmament Kings were chased from their thrones in the 1600's, and another King admitted to the Crown on condition of not disarming the people. When, in the 1700's, our King again sought to disarm us (for we held ourselves to be English), we rebelled, slew His Police Troopers, and established a set of governments for ourselves none of which disarmed free citizens in the least degree, but rather required free citizens to be always armed.

      In sum, the American common law rights are for the citizenry being armed and against any notion that we authorized our state government to disarm us by any degree. This statute is therefore outside the authority we gave our state, and is literally, outlaw. That's Middle English for Unconstitutional.

[NovemberCharlie]

Part 3: The Right of Rseistance to Tyranny, The Several States and their Recognitions of the Right to Arms.

• The Right of Resistance to Tyranny ("...security of a free state...").

  It is essential to understand the purpose of the Second Amendment, in order to understand what is repugnant to it.

  The Revolution was not a crime, it was a noble act.

  1. Thomas Paine said "Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated",
  2. William Penn put it thusly "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God",
  3. Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence, which was a Declaration of Rebellion with intent to perform a Revolution, put it thusly: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor",
  4. Patrick Henry added "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! - I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!";
  and if the Almighty has little place in the Courts today, He stood in high regard with the most of them who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment served the purpose, per their intent, to preserve in our hands the power to obey God by resisting tyranny. Disarmament laws strengthen tyranny by weakening a significant restraint against it. Those Patriots held tyranny, and disarmament laws, to be ungodly. Defendants do not seek to cram any religion down anybodies throat, but to show that the Second Amendment embodies a concept of solemn and sacred duty, that we should lay down our guns to our government no more swiftly than we should volunteer to fasten on our sons and daughters the chains of a debauched slaver. In a poetic construction, Liberty under a Republican form of Democratic government rests upon four boxes:
  • The Soap Box, on which we preach our political views and pedal our political pamphlets, whereby to check our government;
  • The Ballot Box, wherewith we select our legislators, executives, and judges, whereby to check our government;
  • The Jury Box, wherein we judge the laws and the facts arrayed against the arraigned, thereby to check our government (and malefactors); and
  • The Cartridge Box, wherein we hold the power to check or dismiss the government, should some ambition and collusion arrange that the first three boxes become ineffectual.

  Let the time never come when hubris in office shall have overcome humility in public service and the government we have created shall have rendered impotent the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box, for we shall be in dire distress. The True Vision of the Founders, regarding the armed citizen, is that we may, acting en mass, restore the power of the soap box, the ballot box, and the jury box, by the cartridge box, P.R.N. -->

  "[T]he security of a free state" is thus as much the security of the freedom of the individuals from an abusive government as it is the security of the functional state of the organs of the government. portions of the people can be found. There is no power or restraint in the hands of the Government against a general insurrection involving the majority of the people arising in most of the States. The Southern States rebelled in 1861, and lost. If the Northern States had decreed succession in 1861, the President, the Army, the Congress, the Courts, and the Southern States together could not have prevented it. --> If the whole people are armed, then corrupt Kings and their armies can be overthrown by the whole people arising. This is one of the great and central objects of the Second Amendment: that no Army that could possibly be raised, be it supported by whatsoever equipment it could procure, that could hope to prevail against the People at large, if they, the people, are determined in general to have something brought to an end.

  In Federalist No. 46, written prior to the ratification of the Constitution, James Madison discussed how a federal standing army, which he estimated in 1788 would consist of "one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms," might be checked or controlled:

  "To these [the standing army troops] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [state] governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British Arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it."

  State governments not possessing the affections of the people would be subject to the same check as the federal government: Annihilation.

  Noah Webster said it quite well:

  Another source of power in government is a militiary force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A militiary force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

  From Mr Madison's and Mr Webster's words, we may see the pattern of thought on two facets of the matter before the Court:

  1. The keeping and bearing of Arms belongs to the whole body of the people; each of these people own their individual arms; and
  2. When unjust laws are passed, the people have the power, right, and duty to throw such down.

  The Second Amendment, therefore, addresses more than what Mr. Justice McReynolds wrote in US v. Miller 307 U.S. 174,177 (1939),

  The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made...

  the Right of Arms, and therefore the Second Amendment, has also to do with negating perfidious government whereby to restore the common liberty (under a new government).

  The legal and social structures of the Constitutional Model of the United States (and the states severally) rested upon the Militia, being the whole people, bearing their own arms, acting together to enforce just laws and apprehend felons, acting separately in their own defense, and acting en masse to check tyranny. We had just endured tyranny by our own King, we fought a bloody, costly, 8 year war to throw off that tyranny, and we knew that tyranny could arise amongst us in the future. That liberty should be preserved and tyranny restrained or exterminated, the people must remain fully and freely armed, and trained in their arms. Thus did they reason who wrote the Constitution, thus did they reason who wrote the Bill of Rights. They held the Right to oppose and overthrow tyranny to be preserved under this new Constitution and Bill of Rights.

  Summary: Exercise of the Right of Resistance to Tyranny, which we held to be a right we owned, requires the use of arms, including handguns. Disarmament statutes are, therefore, in stark opposition to the Constitutional model of our Government. This statute is a disarmament statute, and is unconstitutional as invasive of our Second Amendment right and duty to resist tyranny in government.

• The Several States and their Recognitions of the Right to Arms.

  Showing that each state reserved the Right to Arms to it's people will show that the Second Amendment did the same. Showing that each state held "militia" to mean the whole body of the people will show that the Second Amendment holds the same. Showing, thereby, that the need for a militia was a need for an armed citizenry, will show that disarmament statutes are unconstitutional.

  Whereas:

  • The Rebellion was not without cause,
  • Those causes included disarmament attempts by the Crown,
  • Those attempts were defeated by our use of our privately owned arms,
  • They who defeated attempted disarmament by one government knew a subsequent government could attempt the same,

  Therefore measures were taken to prevent disarmament efforts by future governments. Four States put an explicit Right to Arms clause in their Constitutions or Bills or Declarations of Rights. Four others did so implicitly by putting "well regulated militia" in their Declarations and Bills of Rights, in a context where "militia" meant the whole body of the people bearing their own privately owned arms. Four states had no bills of rights at all, of which two had no Constitution at all; the Right to Arms was personal and uninfringeable in them all..

  The conclusion we shall reach has already been given in U.S. v. Miller 307 U.S. 174,179 (1939) where Justice McReynolds states (emphasis added):

  The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for militiary discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

  Herein is tabled those measures, taken from their Constitutions except as noted. Together they showed that the Right of Arms was as vital to the security of a free state as the Right of the citizens to Vote.

  Connecticut	No Constitution until 1818, no Bill of Rights until 1818. 1784 Militia Act: "Householders under 55 Years of Age, shall, at all time be furnished at their own Expense, with a well fixed Musket" Statutes forbade duelling and firing at night without cause, creating false alarms (akin to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater). 1818 Bill of Rights: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State."
  Delaware	1776: "That a well regulated Militia is the proper, natural and safe Defense of a free Government." (Militia members were required to provide their own arms). 1791: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves, and the state, shall not be questioned."(proposed) Variations and exceptions could not be agreed on, and the whole clause was dropped upon ratification of the U.S. Constitution Second Amendment.
  Georgia	1776: No Bill of Rights. Repeatedly held the Second Amendment to invalidate state laws restricting arms ownership or carrying. 1777 Constitution Art XXXV: "Every County in the State that has, or hereafter may have, 250 men upwards, liable to bear arms, shall be formed into a battalion". Statutory requirement to own weapons were in force upon all free men until 1800, . Laws from 1755-1800 required freemen to own guns, inspected at Church every Sunday, and forbade them from slaves.
  Maryland	1774: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the gentlemen, freeholders, and other freemen, is the natural strength and only stable security of a free government...; will...render it unnecessary to keep any standing army (ever dangerous to liberty) in this province; and therefore it is recommended ... that each man be provided with a good firelock...and be in readiness to act on any emergency." 1776: "That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defense of a free government." Only one firearms law existed between 1715 and 1794, which restricted slaves only.
  Massachusetts	Common law rights including the right of self-defense and bearing arms, cited incessantly in legislative and public speeches and at criminal trials. Declaration of Rights (1780): Art 1: (inalienable rights, inter alia) "defending their lives and liberties;... and protecting property." (this requires citizen ownership of firearms) Art 17: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the militiary power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it." (again, the Militia is the whole people, owning their own firearms.)
  New Hampshire	No one section of it's 1784 Constitution spells the matter out plainly, but several taken together show individual right and duty to bear arms. II. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights; among which are--the enjoying and defending life and liberty, and protecting property. X.The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defence of a state. XXV. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty. XIII. Proclaimed the duty of each person "to contribute his personal service when necessary" to the public peace and security. Statutes required private ownership of musket, bayonet, ammunition, & supplies. The poor would be armed by a gift by their town. Made proposals for the Federal Bill of Rights: "XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion"
  New Jersey	No bill of rights. Several official acts taken together paint a clear picture. New Jersey had British Fleets with their Cannon anchored off shore, within range of cities, basically the whole war long. It is ineffectual, concerning a man whose house is afire, either to tell him that he has a right to possess buckets and water, or that he has not. It was the same with the Right to Arms. "Every person enrolled (in the New Jersey militia, which included "all effective men between the ages of sixteen and fifty") as aforesaid shall constantly keep himself furnished with a good Musket or a good Rifle-Gun" Statutes forbade shooting matches for gambling, which presumes private ownership of the weapon, and private possession outside of Militia duty and drill. Hunting statutes forbade setting a snare to trigger a loaded gun, indicating private ownership and possession as above. Slaves were obliged to get a pass to bear arms off their masters property, and forbidden to hunt on Sundays. Following the duel in which Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton, Statutes forbade dueling (consentual mutual attempted manslaughter). New Jersey passed no laws forbidding possession or peaceable use of handguns, concealed or open carry thereof, until the 20th Century.
  New York	No bill of rights in it's Constitution. No single article of Constitution or Statute makes explicit, one way or another, concerning the Right to Arms in New York, until 1828. Several statutes and official actions, taken together, paint a clear and consistent picture of a universal Right to Arms. NYC was occupied by British troops Sept 1776 to November 1783, and the countryside beset by marauding bands of bandits and Red Coats. As we said, it is ineffectual, concerning a man whose house is afire, either to tell him that he has a right to possess buckets and water, or that he has not. It was the same, in the state of New York, with the Right to Arms. The New York Constitution of 1777, Art XL (carried over in the Constitution of 1821) "it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it" conjoined with "the militia of this State, ... as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service". The Act to Regulate the Militia (1786) required every able-bodied male, ages sixteen to forty-four to "provide himself, at his own expense, with a good musket or firelock" NY State Law: "That all men generally be ready, and armed and accoutered,...and at the cry of the country, to pursue and arrest felons." New Years Eve celebratory shooting earned a fine. Unless this is State Police troopers shooting, the people are armed. Ratified the Constitution subject to the attachment of a Bill of Rights, proposing for the same (in preface) "we, the delegates of the people of the state of New York...do declare and make known,"; containing (inter alia) "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state"; and ending "that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated." ((Bickford & Viet, 4:20, emphasis original!)) Nobody raised a voice in opposition either to the federal (proposed) Second Amendment, nor to Tench Coxe's article about it printed in the New York Packet "that the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." 1828 Bill of Rights: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed." and "This provision appears in the Declaration of Rights of William and Mary (1689 ¶7), in the United States Constitution (2d Amendment) and in the Revised Statutes of 1828 (Pt 1, Ch 4, § 3)." see Report of Board of Statutory Consolidation p 440 (1907)
  North Carolina	Declaration of Rights 1776 "XVII. That the people have a Right to bear Arms for the Defense of the State; and as standing Armies in Time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, they ought not to be kept up..." State Statute 1787: "that all freemen and indentured Servants within this State, from 15 to 50 years of age, shall compose the militia thereof." ibid: Militia Privates were to furnish their own muskets and rifles, horsemen were to furnish their own pistols.
  Pennsylvania	Declaration of Rights of 1777: "XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms in the defense of themselves and the state." Declaration of Rights of 1790: "XXI That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned."
  Rhode Island	No Constitution until 1842, no Bill of Rights. The Militia Act, 1718-1798: [each man 18 to 44 must] "provide himself with a good musket or firelock." This declares firearm ownership a duty. Duelling was prohibited. Unnecessary gunfire after sundown was prohibited. Firing in or across roads was prohibited. These laws all reflect private ownership as a right. Only invading the rights of others was prohibited. When Rhode Island finally met to consider ratifying the Constitution (in effect 18 months already) and the Bill of Rights (already ratified by 6 states) came this question from state Legislator James Sheldon, touching upon the First Amendment: "If it is right that Congress should not make any Laws respecting it no State ought to have the Right.", showing that the restraints in the Bill of Rights were held to be proper upon States as well as on the Federal government, "Congress shall make no law..." was deemed improper. Rhode Island agreed to the Bill of Rights before it ratified the Constitution itself. The Ratification of the Federal Constitution came attached to a list of Rights which "cannot be abridged or violated" including (inter alia) "XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state." Constitution of 1842, list of rights: "§ 22. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
  South Carolina	1776: no bill of rights at all. 1778: Some rights declared; Freedom of speech and arms not included. Free speech was not deprecated; rather it was assumed. Likewise the Right of Arms. South Carolina's General Committee recommended, upon hearing of the disarmament orders in Boston, that all persons provide themselves with at least twelve and a half pounds of powder, with a proportionate quantity of bullets and required "that every person liable to bear arms, shall appear completely armed, once in every fortnite" (see Extracts from the Journals of the Provincial Congress 121 (Charleston, 1776)). The Constitution of South Carolina says it all in the preamble thereof: Hostilities having been commenced in the Massachusetts Bay, by the troops under the command of General Gage, whereby a number of peaceable, helpless, and unarmed people were wantonly robbed and murdered, and there being just reason to apprehend that like hostilities would be committed in all the other colonies, the colonists were therefore driven to the necessity of taking up arms, to repel force by force, and to defend themselves and their properties against lawless invasions and depredations. This not only presumes a right to keep and bear arms by all the people for the defense of themselves and their state, but further it declares plainly that a people have a right and a duty to throw down violent government by violence. Let it be obvious that such a overthrow shall not be by judicial decree enforced by State-owned arms, but by privately owned Arms operated extra-judicially. This also makes disarmament laws a Badge of Tyranny upon that State.
  Vermont	Constitution, Art I, Sec 15 (1777): "That the people have a right to bear arms in the defense of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up."
  Virginia	Declaration of Rights (1776) "XIII. That a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to Arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defense of a free State; that standing Armies, in Time of Peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to Liberty." (Virginia refused recognition of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights that recognized the individual Right to Bear Arms. )

  From this it is obvious that the Right of Arms was individual, fundamental, universal, and both a Right and a Duty. New York State cannot pretend that it has not recognized an individual Right to Arms, including handguns, from the beginning. It's charter rests upon it's duty to the people, and to the preservation of their rights, explicitly including the Right to Arms, handguns included. New York State has not received authority from the people, nor ever will, to reduce their Right to Arms. Suffice it to say that were a Grand Jury studying this matter made of any twelve signers of the Constitution, they would have laughed this statute out of Court, and refused any indictment; a similar trial Jury would swiftly acquit any and all persons accused thereunder. That is a simple and perfect test for whether a statute (or Supreme Court Judgement) is unconstitutional. This Statute is outside the authority of the state, and is therefore unenforceable.