The right to bear arms

"That certainly was never the intention of either the cities or the colonies, let alone the Founders, who NEVER intended, for example, that imbeciles/mental deficients would be allowed guns; or, in the South, slaves.

Wrong. It was the intention of the law of the land that if a person was a threat to the community, they were not permitted to be free. At the end of their sentences, ex-prisoners had their property returned to them which included firearms. Slaves had no rights but free blacks had firearms.

There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth from the gun-control lobby, but more than 25 years of strict gun-control laws have demonstrated the bankruptcy of disarming law-abiding citizens. It's time to change course.

"Wailing and gnashing of teeth" doesn't begin to describe it - try "hysterical shrieking, self-righteous posturing, and Viewing With Alarm." Hillary Clinton will burble "Republicans want your babies to die" and Sarah Brady's undergarments will have more knots than a three-masted schooner.

It's hard to overemphasize the threat that "change course" represents to antigun extremists, whose strategy is incrementalism. They have been scrambling to explain away the inconvenient fact that proliferation of "shall-issue" laws has not resulted in the predicted bloodbath. Nor is the mainstream press happy with the situation. Expect a hysterical reaction to the next public shooting, coming soon to a network near you. I'd guess sometime in the next month or so - the antigunners are getting anxious.

Well, yes and no. "Rights" are ALWAYS (and were always intended to be) subject to both concepts of "public good" (see Madison's Federalist) and to what we call common sense/reason, or what the Founders called "virtue." This is precisely why the Founders established court systems, to deal with the actual implementation of the law that no written law can possibly contain in its original form.

Hence, the "free speech" amendment has a number of caveats attached later, including treason, sedition, "fire in a theater," and so on. The Founders certainly understood these limitations, but did not think it necessary to write down everything, nor was that possible.

Most important, they believed that power resided at the state and local level, and that communities had the authority to regulate such things that we consider violations (today) of rights, such as what dress was acceptable; when businesses could be open; and, yes, whether firearms or other weapons could be allowed in certain public places.

No, sir, YOU are wrong. There was no "law of the land" when it came to who was, and was not, a citizen or "free." Colonies themselves were widely divided on what characteristics constituted free people, competent people, and citizens, and all were not interchangeable. In most STATES, property requirements for voting remained until the 1820s, meaning that citizenship rights were abridged. Marriages between black and white FREE PEOPLE were not permitted in Virginia after 1660.

You're going to have to do better than that to explain how a small community can deny the Bill of Rights to citizens within that community.

Congress is not mentioned in my 2nd Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be ingringed" means no level of government can infringe upon the people's right. Not the feds, not the States, not counties and not cities. No one. -FreeTally

That certainly was never the intention of either the cities or the colonies, let alone the Founders, who NEVER intended, for example, that imbeciles/mental deficients would be allowed guns; or, in the South, slaves. I agree, though, with your general interpretation that the PREVAILING assumption is that the people should be armed.
But as I say, there was abundant colonial case law that already had established towns' rights to regulate arms of all sorts within their borders.

Here, imo, is the problem with your local control view of this issue. --
-- 'Regulate' does not mean prohibit. Reasonable regulations on public use to suit local conditions, certainly.
-- Total prohibitions on private possession? - Never; -- as per the 'Law of the Land', and 14th amendment.

There was no "law of the land" when it came to who was, and was not, a citizen or "free." Colonies themselves were widely divided on what characteristics constituted free people, competent people, and citizens, and all were not interchangeable. In most STATES, property requirements for voting remained until the 1820s, meaning that citizenship rights were abridged. Marriages between black and white FREE PEOPLE were not permitted in Virginia after 1660.

-------------------------------------

Yep, that was the 'states rights' view of the constitution till we fought a war & changed it in '68, -- with the 14th amendment.

Since then, states MUST use equal protecton & due process of law before depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, or abridging their privileges or immunities.

Suprisingly, many people, even here at FR, are still fighting that states rights war. Why?

Tom, I agree with you that the FEDERAL interpretation of citizenship is the correct one. I am not fighting the Civil War. And thus I would agree that a federal understanding of the 2d Amendment, that NO ONE, including cities or municipalities, can restrict or abridge the "right to bear arms," except within certain well-understood guidelines. I was just trying to bring HISTORICAL perspective to the debate, which obviously is misunderstood on both sides here.

We agree fully.

All I am saying is that colonies and municipalities ALWAYS thought they had the right to regulate (for good and bad) the "right to bear arms." (Usually to require it---but the right to require is also the right to deny, is it not?)

But the corollary of that is that if you argue that the 2d Amend. is a FEDERAL right (via the 14th Amend) you blow out of the water the "states' rights" arguments so often invoked here. Is that what you wish to invoke?

"Rights" are ALWAYS (and were always intended to be) subject to both concepts of "public good" (see Madison's Federalist) and to what we call common sense/reason, or what the Founders called "virtue."

Not 'rights' -- but 'the law' was to be subject to common sense.

This is precisely why the Founders established court systems, to deal with the actual implementation of the law that no written law can possibly contain in its original form.

And why the 9th says that unenumerated rights are retained by the people, and are NOT subject to the whims of a local majority.

Hence, the "free speech" amendment has a number of caveats attached later, including treason, sedition, "fire in a theater," and so on. The Founders certainly understood these limitations, but did not think it necessary to write down everything, nor was that possible.

Exactly, -- but laws written 'later', still must conform to the constitution.
- IE - the 'sedition' law did not, and was struck down.

Most important, they believed that power resided at the state and local level, and that communities had the authority to regulate such things that we consider violations (today) of rights, such as what dress was acceptable; when businesses could be open; and, yes, whether firearms or other weapons could be allowed in certain public places.

Yep, again - within reason, within constitutional bounds. -- Theoretically, it would be possible to prohibit the possession of say, semi-automatic rifles, -- by constitutional amendment. ----- NOT otherwise. -- Can you agree?

Or do you agree with the state of CA, which is unconstitutionaly doing just that right now?

I was just trying to bring HISTORICAL perspective to the debate, which obviously is misunderstood on both sides here.

All of us here misunderstand history? -- You too?

-- You might want to explain yourself a bit more on that one.

"All I am saying is that colonies and municipalities ALWAYS thought they had the right to regulate (for good and bad) the "right to bear arms." (Usually to require it---but the right to require is also the right to deny, is it not?)"

They may have thought that they could deny rights but they don't even if there wasn't a 14th amendment. The Bill of Rights states what freedom that individuals already have and no state or community has the right[?] to take that away.

The issue is whether the 14th Amendment's federalizing of citizenship requirements---which is cited as evidence of a FEDERAL "right to bear arms" law---supercedes a state-based right to bear arms as argued by the Neo-Confederates. If STATES determine citizenship, which is what the neo-Confederates argue here, then state and local governments determine gun rights. But if the FEDS determine citizenship (my view) then they also establish gun rights via the Constitution.

But some here are attempting to have it both ways, arguing on the one hand against the Lincoln position and for the Confederacy on the grounds of "states' rights" and at the same time for the FEDERAL 14th Amend. interpretation of "right to bear arms" applying to all citizens due to its federal/national character.

On semi-autos, actually, no, the history of "bearing arms" in either England or the colonies supports only those weapons considered usable by an individual for self-defense. For ex., the debate in Eng. was over long-bows (accepted as "common") and crossbows, which were viewed as (in our vernacular) "weapons of mass destruction." Colonial laws likewise ensured most people of musket ownership---often required it---but would not have accepted cannon ownership as necessary for "self defense."

And, yes, "the people" retain the rights, but those rights are always spelled out by law, and the law always depends on what the courts say it means. This isn't hyfalutin' philosophy, but practical reality: the Constitution means what the nine justices say it means, for PRACTICAL purposes. For argument, well . . . .

Neither the 14th Amend. nor the bill of rights existed in the colonies, dude. That is what I have been trying to convey to you is the colonial HERITAGE of these concepts. Want to try again?

Not really. I was sticking to the subject of the thread when I was arguing that Washington D.C. is violating the Bill of Rights when they instituted the handgun ban. I must have missed the jump off as to how a bunch of Royalists wanted to subjugate the commoners.

The issue is whether the 14th Amendment's federalizing of citizenship requirements---which is cited as evidence of a FEDERAL "right to bear arms" law

Whoa.. Never heard that specific argument before.
-- The purpose of the entire first section of the 14th is to stop states from violating citizens and/or peoples rights, -- and thus the BOR's, including the 2nd. -- You agree?

---supercedes a state-based right to bear arms as argued by the Neo-Confederates. If STATES determine citizenship, which is what the neo-Confederates argue here, then state and local governments determine gun rights. But if the FEDS determine citizenship (my view) then they also establish gun rights via the Constitution.
But some here are attempting to have it both ways, arguing on the one hand against the Lincoln position and for the Confederacy on the grounds of "states' rights" and at the same time for the FEDERAL 14th Amend. interpretation of "right to bear arms" applying to all citizens due to its federal/national character.

No 'confederacy' advocates on FR are FOR the 14th that I have ever seen. Most think it is the 'evil' amendment. Could you explain further?

Most important, they believed that power resided at the state and local level, and that communities had the authority to regulate such things that we consider violations (today) of rights, such as what dress was acceptable; when businesses could be open; and, yes, whether firearms or other weapons could be allowed in certain public places.

Yep, again - within reason, within constitutional bounds.
-- Theoretically, it would be possible to prohibit the possession of say, semi-automatic rifles, -- by constitutional amendment. ----- NOT otherwise. -- Can you agree?

Or do you agree with the state of CA, which is unconstitutionaly doing just that right now? - #31

On semi-autos, actually, no, the history of "bearing arms" in either England or the colonies supports only those weapons considered usable by an individual for self-defense. For ex., the debate in Eng. was over long-bows (accepted as "common") and crossbows, which were viewed as (in our vernacular) "weapons of mass destruction." Colonial laws likewise ensured most people of musket ownership---often required it---but would not have accepted cannon ownership as necessary for "self defense."

Are you saying that CA has the constitutional power to 'regulate' the possession of semi-auto weapons?

And, yes, "the people" retain the rights, but those rights are always spelled out by law, and the law always depends on what the courts say it means. This isn't hyfalutin' philosophy, but practical reality: the Constitution means what the nine justices say it means, for PRACTICAL purposes. For argument, well . ...

In reality, it is our corrupt political system that has allowed the constitution to be ignored.
-- Most of the controversy on this site is between those who back the existing statist quo, and would compromise principle, --- and those who will not, and say so.

I am saying that there is case law in England and colonial America to suggest that the "right to bear arms" did not include heavy weapons or arms considered outside the norm for self defense. I think there can be a good Constitutional argument made, based on the INTENTION of the Founders, that every community itself maintain sufficient "heavy weapons"---in addition to individually owned small arms---to offset whatever military force the government might have. For ex, I think it reasonable that, say, the City of Dayton have a couple of M-1 tanks maintained by the city, and that if every city in the nation had such firepower, there would never be a chance of tyranny by the Feds. BUT it would be narrow-minded and rather blind to ignore the case law and English tradition, as well as some colonial law, of DISTINGUISHING between personal weapons and heavy combat weapons that were thought to be for reasons other than self defense.

Otherwise, you cannot explain the enthusiasm of governments for, on the one hand, arming men with small arms, yet on the other hand restricting the availability of first crossbows, then, later, cannon.