This Mural in the American Capitol was painted in 1862. The mural has at least ten firearms in it. Three are carried by men on horseback, one is in a wagon. At the time, the right to bear arms while traveling was accepted and unremarkable.
Posted on 07/11/2022 4:44:44 AM PDT by marktwain
The United States Supreme Court has defended and restored the bear half of the right to keep and bear arms, in the recent Bruen decision.
Much work remains to be done. It is clear that the people have a right to bear arms outside the home. One of the major purposes is for the defense of self and others.
An area left undefined in Bruen is the right to bear arms in defense of self and others while traveling, particularly while traveling across state lines.
There was no prohibition on carrying arms at the time of ratification in 1791. Carrying arms for defense, while traveling, was common and accepted. Even the strictest colonial restrictions on the bearing of arms, the East New Jersey law, enacted in 1686, had an exception for people who were traveling. The colonial law, which was in effect for about six years, was cited by both sides in the Bruen decision: From P. 6 of amicus curiae briefs on Bruen.
In 1686, East New Jersey enacted a law providing that no person “shall presume privately to wear any pocket pistol, skeines, stilettoes, daggers or dirks, or other unusual or unlawful weapons,” and that “no planter shall ride or go armed with sword, pistol or dagger” except certain officials and “strangers, travelling upon their lawful occasions through this Province, behaving themselves peaceably.”3
An exception noted in the earliest and most extreme of the colonial “bear arms” laws should be given some weight.
As noted by an English traveler in the early Republic, traveling armed was common. From Isaac Weld, TRAVELS THROUGH THE STATES OF NORTH AMERICA 233-34 (2d ed. 1799) (1796, on the roads from Kentucky/Tennessee to and from Philadelphia/ Baltimore:
“the people all travel on horseback, with pistols and swords.”
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
It is virtually impossible for people from other states to legally bear arms in California, New York, New Jersey, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Maryland.
This Mural in the American Capitol was painted in 1862. The mural has at least ten firearms in it. Three are carried by men on horseback, one is in a wagon. At the time, the right to bear arms while traveling was accepted and unremarkable.
State matter, not a federal one.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment applies to the States as well as the Fed Gov.
[This remarkable book is available gratis in the Kindle Free Library. These 2 American college students took revolvers to protect themselves against bandits. They were declared at every border crossing, and officials thought it was perfectly right and natural that they should be armed for their protection in the lawless countryside.]
Across Asia on a Bicycle: The Journey of Two American Students from Constantinople to Peking
In 1890, two American college graduates set out to travel around the world on a then-new invention, the modern bicycle. In 1893 they returned, have covered over 15,000 miles, at that time the “longest continuous land journey ever made around the world.” This is their account their trip across Turkey, Persia, Turkestan and northern China. It described their adventures traveling along through regions few outsiders ever visited. Out of print over a century, this book is now back in print with additional notes and maps.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Across_Asia_on_a_Bicycle.html?id=CGmICUWE7bgC
Massachusetts issues Nonresident LTC - harder to get than a resident of a rural town but a LOT easier to get than a resident of Boston.
NY does not issue nonresident permits - at all - unless you have a business in NY, one where you go to work on a regular basis (no absentee owners).
Just as in Bruen, it involves a fundamental right enumerated in the Constitution and applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Federal government does not have to do anything in this matter, except keep the states from violating the Constitution.
“States matter, not a federal one”.
Not true. All rights that are presented in the Constitution are incumbent on the States.
And your right to keep and bear arms in California, for example, is not prohibited so long as you abide by local laws.
Allowing the federal government to say that every state must honor one state's carry permit also allows the federal government to say what qualifications are required for that permit to begin with. Is that what you want?
The Federal Government should stay out of it completely.
Yeah, but that was back in the olden days when highway robbery was common.
Coaches were often “coach-jacked” and passengers murdered for their possessions.
For out-of-state travellers, there truly are, no longer, certain “no go zones”.
That doesn’t happen at all in this new, enlightened, progressive, Utopian States of America.
/lib-rant
Then any state which so desires can re-institute slavery.
Not necessary. The Supreme Court could rule that if a person is allowed to legally bear arms in their state of official residence, other states may not prevent them from bearing arms under the same rules residents of the states they are traveling in, who are allowed to bear arms, bear arms.
A Federal law is not necessary for this.
“State matter, not a federal one.”
Incorrect.
L
“for snakes and such”
Love, William Munny
PS ESAD, Little Bill
Article IV, Section 1:
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”
So, Congress CAN prescribe that the Public Act allowing Carry in one state would or would not apply in all states. And barring a restriction already codified, does it not currently have Constitutional effect???
Missed that whole 13th Amendment thing, didn't you?
Which would solve everything. Let me know when the Supreme Court issues such a ruling.
Can the federal government tell Texas, for example, what qualifications they must set to get a concealed carry permit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.