The right to bear arms

Washington Times ^ | 6/03/02

[Shooter 2.5]

I'm ashamed to say that I looked it up in my Second Amendment Primer. I wanted it to be correct.

I think someone just likes to argue semantics. Either that or Colonial Law.

[tpaine]

So you oppose states rights and federalism as stated in the constitution. That's good to know.

Both of the above, as you see them, -- are figments of your imagination. -- Thus, - will do you absolutely no good to 'know'.

Good luck kid, - you're gonna need it.

[Lower55]

I thought I would love to have those bear arms.

But after second thought, the hair and the nails would be a bit distracting. So, count me out.

[Lower55]

I thought I would love to have those bear arms.

But after second thought, the hair and the nails would be a bit distracting. So, count me out.

[LS]

Don't believe in luck. No such thing.

[LS]

True, but this has been the point of my apparently wasted posts to shooter: "shall not be infringed" is a phrase understood in the context of its time, 1787. We must therefore understand what THEY meant by the word "infringed." Did that mean, "no law, ever?" To learn that, we must find out how their OWN courts and colonial governments dealt with firearms. Most required musket/powder ownership (and I argue that the "power to require is also the power to deny," but we'll leave that for a moment). Several had variations of laws that in different ways addressed guns and weapons---who could own them, etc. So pretty OBVIOUSLY the word "infringe" did not mean "in no way ever address in law."

Now, I will be the first to agree that the PREPONDERANCE of colonial law was to avoid in any way restricting the use of firearms or guns. As I said, most laws were written so as to require them. But for those exceptions, it is still important to understand the nature and intent of those exceptions and, more important to my thinking, to determine if the colonies and municipalities were viewed as the "regulators of last resort" or the federal government. This is an issue that goes straight to the heart of conservatism, namely, to what degree can cities and states govern themselves?

Let me repeat, so you do not deliberately misunderstand me: I am willing to believe that the phrase "shall not be infringed" LIKELY means that city and colonial governments could not regulate firearms in any way. But this is a case where I have to see the laws first, and I am investigating it---as, unfortunately, most people here are not. They are just mouthing nimble phrases that they have heard uttered in the past.

[LS]

Are you deliberately dense? Have you ever examined law in even a cursory fashion? If you are truly interested in the Constitution, then we need to know both what the words SAY and what they MEAN. As with every phrase in the Constitution, the Founders intended a Republic based on virtue and reason. To understand what they MEAN by the word, you must look at colonial case law---you just cannot seem to comprehend this.

Look at it this way: "What part of 'fox' don't you understand?" Well, a "fox" is a) a car by Audi; b) a good looking female; c) a furry animal; d) a Laker forward. To know what the word means, we need the context of its use. Dude, this has been the pro-gun (of which I am one) crowd's ARGUMENT FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS: THAT THE TERM 'MILITIA' WAS NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S TROOPS, BUT WAS ARMED INDIVIDUALS WHO STOOD IN POTENTIAL OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT'S TROOPS. But you must be consistent. You can't say, "let's go back to original intent with the word "militia" and not go back for the word "infringe."

[LS]

Good. Glad you admit that. You just destroyed the arguments of all the neo-Confederates on the board and many of the Brigadiers.

So Article 10, and all the "reserved" clauses really don't count, huh?

[Shooter 2.5]

That's what I meant when I said you liked to argue semantics.
I also thought you could take a hint when you continure to refer to the Colonists.
The only reason people like me cut to the chase on the Second Amendment is because we've been through this thousands of times with people just like you. The only group that seems to try to pick apart the Second Amendment are the anti-gun nuts who try to find the verbal loophole so that the Amendment doesn't mean what it says.

I think everyone here uses English as a primary language and we already went back and studied the Amendment. We know exactly what they meant when they wrote it. I'm surprised you didn't waste time on this board arguing what the word "regulated" meant. Ask someone on this board and they will tell you the 1780's definition.

In short, The Second Amendment means exactly what it says. It's the law of the land and any gun control law violates it.

[Demidog]

So Article 10, and all the "reserved" clauses really don't count, huh?

Why is this relevant to whether or not the constitution binds the states from infringing upon our rights? Do words like "the people" count?

[Demidog]

So what do you claim the word "infringed" was defined to mean in 1792?

[Teacher317]

The existence of gun laws (pro- or anti-) back in the Revolutionary era could simply mean that there were tinpot dictators on the local and state level back then who had little regard or respect for that precious document, and the wisdom behind it (just as there are today, in FAR too great quantities).

[Teacher317]

You just destroyed the arguments of all the neo-Confederates on the board and many of the Brigadiers.

Not really, he just showed where the vocabulary might be a modified little. Yes, we really should talk about "States Powers" (how they are properly limited, and how they balance with the Constitutionally-limited Federal Powers), but that has an ominous tone to it that is in direct opposition to the intent of those who support the (mis-named) "States' Rights."

Similarly, had the Founding Fathers foreseen today's bumbling arguments about the 2nd Amendment, they probably would have happily added the word "Free" before the word "men"... thereby negating the over-labored point that prisoners and institutionalized mental patients may not own and use firearms.

Small vocabulary modifications do not change the overall wisdom or message... they simply shore up the defenses against the lawyerly semantics arguments.

[Demidog]

But for those exceptions, it is still important to understand the nature and intent of those exceptions and, more important to my thinking, to determine if the colonies and municipalities were viewed as the "regulators of last resort" or the federal government.

OK. Valid. Now can you tell us which colony (and colonies would not be states) had such laws and who they prohibited from owning arms?

[Always Right]

Ashcroft is NOT about to allow his empty rhetoric to change the reality of gun control in America.

It just blows me away when someone who tries to do something positive catches so much crap for it.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Actually, I don't think it is accurate to say that machine guns are banned. You can get them with a federal license (which is not incredibly difficult so I have been told).

[in the Arena]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This was what was known as "states' rights" or "local control." Colonies long had regulations against carrying firearms in church, for example, and the issue that set off the "gunfight at the O.K. Corrall" was that to control the carnage in Tombstone, the Earps required all firearms be checked at the sheriff's office while in town.

I don't buy this example, Arizona did not join the Union until 14 Feb 1912. The shootout you mention took place on 26 October 1881.

The people of the Arizona territory were not subject too nor protected by the Consitution. Local towns/sheriffs could enact any ordinances they choose.

Once the territory became a State it was bound by the US Constitution in particular the portion of the 14th amendment..."No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

[Shooter 2.5]

Yes, a person can get a class III license in Texas. But in some states like Illinois, machine guns are banned because of state laws. A class III license doesn't do any good. That's why I mentioned that machine guns should be legal in ALL the states. Sorry for the confusion.

[metesky]

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.

That would be British law then, would it not?

[LS]

Duh. Americans were British prior to 1776, and that is irrelevant. Ever hear of "Dartmouth College Case?" One of the premier cases in American law ruled that charters and contracts made as BRITISH colonies were valid, and served as the basis for American case law. In other words, the colonial gun laws, whatever they were, would be the "intepretive framework" for the phrases "militia" and "infringe."