Well, the founders didn’t define “shall not be infringed” in the Constitution....../s
>
Well, the founders didn’t define “shall not be infringed” in the Constitution....../s
>
NY and the like are being nice and *ALLOWING* one to KEEP their arms, they just can’t BEAR them @ the same time...That satisfies the 2nd *Leftist “think” here* That’s the way Rights work, no? /s
The New Yorkers who ratified the Constitution in 1788 said what the Constitution meant with respect to bearing arms.
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;
...Under these impressions and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the Explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, And in confidence that the Amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature Consideration: We the said Delegates, in the Name and in the behalf of the People of the State of New York Do by these presents Assent to and Ratify the said Constitution.
The delegates to that ratification convention who voted for that statement included John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, two of the three authors of the Federalist Papers that explained what the Constitution meant.
And the so-called Father of the Constitution, James Madison, the other author of the Federalist Papers, said the following about how to interpret the Constitution (Source: Letter to M. L. Hurlbert, May 1830):
But whatever respect may be thought due to the intention of the Convention, which prepared & proposed the Constitution, as presumptive evidence of the general understanding at the time of the language used, it must be kept in mind that the only authoritative intentions were those of the people of the States, as expressed thro' the Conventions which ratified the Constitution.