One of the purposes of the 2nd was to make sure the Nation is not 100% dependant on a standing Federal army- and that ship has sailed. Even the NG is now part of the Federal army.
The purpose of the 2nd ad now is to allow people to defend their homes and persons. That was also true when it was written
Except of course, that when it was written, it was fully expected that states would make their own laws as to gun possession and use, which they did.
Cite? Because owning a gun for self defense, hunting or yes, volunteering in the Militia, was taken as a given.
Sure there were laws about carrying a gun in town, but none about owning one in your own home.
Just like today, felons cant own guns, or you cant carry a gun onto a school-those are extreme lifeboat cases.
Yes indeed, there is certainly a long history of gun control laws being enacted for racist, anti-immigrant, and classist reasons. Gun control: Yet another tool of White Supremacy! Defund the ATF!
Former slaves and “persons of color” are not felons.
Here’s a fairly comprehensive (though not exhaustive) list of historical gun control laws.
one example
So, hand guns that were not meant for and used for militia purposes were banned from everyone.
I didn’t say that the gun laws were not racist, but that was not the matter being addressed.
As I said, every state was able to pass their own laws, as intended by those who wrote the second amendment.
@DrDeth said that there were no laws about owning one in your own home. I pointed out that there are in fact laws about not owning them in your own home.
That law was struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846 in Nunn v. Georgia, explicitly as a violation of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms. This was before “incorporation”–it was before the Fourteenth Amendment–then again, the Second Amendment (unlike the First) doesn’t actually say “Congress shall make no law…”.
This contradicts nothing that I said.
@DrDeth said that owning a gun for self defense was taken as a given.
The presumption being that the writers of 2A intended this purpose.
I have demonstrated that that was not taken as a given in several cases.
That a law was crafted and took nearly a decade to overturn, by the state court, not SCOTUS, tells me that it was not a given.
That racially biased laws were crafted, and took much longer to overturn, if it all, is even further evidence that the individual right to self defense was not a given either.
The claim being made is that 2A was written for the purpose of individual self defense. Not only does the wording of the amendment not address that at all, but quite a few laws were written that do not consider that meaning to be relevant.
But, to return to the topic of the thread, there never was, and never will be, any sort of deterrence of tyranny by gun owners. The self defense argument has always been exactly that, self defense. Not defense of country or state or community, only of self.
No rights have ever been a “given”. Not free speech, not free exercise of religion, not voting rights, not the right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, not the right to not be gunned down by the police in one’s own home. The right to keep and bear arms is in pretty distinguished company, there.
I guess the Third Amendment has been pretty safe, though.
Though you are correct to say no rights are always taken as a given, I must point out that you still haven’t contradicted anything k9bfriender said.
~Max
Well, I cant find that in your link, but I found it elsewhere , and if you read on:"And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, …:
Provided, nevertheless, that the provisions of this act shall not extend to Sheriffs, Deputy Sheriffs,
Marshals, Constables, Overseers or Patrols, in actual discharge of their respective duties, but not
otherwise: Provided, also, that no person or persons, shall be found guilty of violating the before
recited act, who shall openly wear, externally, Bowie Knives, Dirks, Tooth Picks, Spears, and which
shall be exposed plainly to view: And provided, nevertheless, that the provisions of this act shall not
extend to prevent venders, or any other persons who now own and have for sale, any of the
aforesaid weapons, before the first day of March next."
In other words- it prevented only new businesses for selling those things, and if you look at the last line of your cite “… save such pistols as are known and used, as horseman’s pistols, etc.” which were the normal pistol in 1837, this only excluded small concealable pistols such as “muff” pistols, Derringers, etc.
So what this law did was prevent new businesses from selling small concealable pistols. Meh
No, not all at, since you didnt read the whole law,-it didnt stop people from owning shotguns or rifles, just small concealable pistols and only those that didnt already sell or own such guns.
K9bfriender started off by saying that “Except of course, that when it [that is, the Second Amendment MEB] was written, it was fully expected that states would make their own laws as to gun possession and use, which they did”. Well, of course no one is claiming that states have zero power to make laws regulating “gun possession”–every state has laws regulating possession of firearms and other weapons, so that’s a total straw man–and still less that states are unable to make laws regulating gun use, which taken literally would imply that states can’t even outlaw armed robbery, as that would infringe on the “right to keep and bear arms”.
So, what kind of “laws as to gun possession and use” was k9bfriender asserting that states had and have the power to make? Well, the only ones he directly quoted from were:
But just to see if I can directly contradict something k9bfriender has said:
When the Second Amendment was written, it was NOT fully expected that states would make their own laws as to gun possession and use, if by “laws as to gun possession and use” it is meant that states can outlaw sale or possession of weapons “not meant for and used for militia purposes”. My authority for this is over 170 years of American constitutional jurisprudence at both the state and federal levels (Nunn v. Georgia; and District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago) which have interpreted the Second Amendment as disallowing such sweepingly prohibitionist forms of gun control.
Thank you, I think this is a much better and articulate counterargument. I suspect DrDeth would concur (despite his original claim that the right to own a firearm for self defense, hunting, militia service, etc. was “taken as a given”), and look forward to k9bfriender’s response.
~Max
Well, I stand behind my claim, but yes, MEBuckner wrote a excellent post, much better than mine.
The suspension of elections comes to mind.