Author Topic: The Second Amendment (Read 4172 times)

sgt203 · « **on:** March 21, 2007, 10:04:12 PM »

Am intersted in Comments as to how people feel as far as if the right to keep and bear arms extends to the CITIZENS.. and is not empowered only to the states

I for one have always beleived the right for Citizens to KEEP and bear arms is just that, a right for each individual citizen to own, keep and bear arms.

The constant assaults against this position and a recent court ruling from Washington DC (which is being appealed by the City of Washington DC) which stated this right does extend to the individual citizen have made me want to look into his deeper and see what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind with the second amendment.

I did some research and have posted what I found below..

United States Bill of Rights (ratfied December 15, 1791)

The Second Amendment " A well regulated militia, being neccessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Having looked at this in the abstract, standing alone, I can see where some may feel this means this is for a "Militia" (army) and not the individual, however standing alone also "the right of the people" seem to be fairly clear also.

To understand what the founders of this country were trying to say I looked at the US Declaration of Independence. A part of this jumped out at me as fairly important to the state of mind of the founding fathers of this country. ....."but when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security".

The Declaration of Independence was signed July 4, 1776 and the first 10 amendments were ratified by the States on December 15, 1791. Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Goverment but many series of 20th century court cases by the Supreme Court have stated that these rights (most of them) apply to the states.

So I looked at the Individual State Constitutions fo the original 13 colonies.

Pennsylvania Adopted Sept 28, 1776

Section 21 Right to Bear Arms.

The right OF THE CITIZENS to bear arms in defense of THEMSELVES AND THE STATE shall not be infirnged

New Hampshire June 2, 1784

Artilce 2-a The Bearing of Arms

All person have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the State.

Georgia (as revised Jan 2005)

Article 1 Section 1 RIGHTS OF PERSONS

Thye right of the poeple to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the general assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be BORNE.

Massechusetts Bill of Rights 1780

Article 17.
The people have the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense....

Rhode Island 1663-1843 new Constitution adopted 1780

Section 22 Right to bear Arms
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Virginia June 1788

Article 17
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms...(amended)

North Carolina August 1788

Article 17
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms (amended)

***North Carolina and Virginia read exactly the same***

Delaware Sept 11, 1776 and Maryland May 8, 1867

Both read..

That a well regulated militia is the proiper and natural defense of a free Government.

Del article 18 Maryland Art 28.

New York April 20, 1777

Article XL..

And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every state that it should always be in a condition of defense; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it, this convention therefor, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this state, doth ordain, determine and delcare that the militia of this state, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war. shall be armed and disciplined and in readiness for service...

My conclusions:

Most of the constitutions of these states were ratified PRIOR to the United States Bill of Rights and a majoirty make it unambiguoius as to the intent that the CITIZENS have the right to keep and bear arms. There are some exceptions where the INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS are not expressly stated New York, Delaware and Maryland and to some extent Massechusetts.

However the MAJORITY OF THE STATES THAT WERE NEEDED TO RATIFY THE UNITED STATES BILL OF RIGHT CLEARLY BY THEIR OWN CONSTITUTIONS INFER THIS RIGHT UPON THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN, NOT UPON THE STATES.

In as much as the United States Bill of Rights sets forth the MINIMUM STANDARDS OF RIGHT FOR ALL CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.. Those states who have less than plain defining language as to the individual right ARE BOUND TO EXTEND THESE MINIMUM RIGHTS TO THEIR CITIZENS..

I am intersted to hear both concurring and opposing views on this issue..

<<>>

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #1 on:** March 21, 2007, 10:05:39 PM »

cav58d · « **Reply #2 on:** March 21, 2007, 10:23:19 PM »

I dont like people who try and sue gun manufacturers....

It's like saying.......My brother was beaten to death with a Vitamin water bottle...Lets go sue vitamin water!

Toad · « **Reply #3 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:14:07 AM »

Sgt203, you've done a lot of homework and you, like almost everyone else that can think critically, realize it is and was always intended as an individual right.

If it were not an individual right, it would be the ONLY ONE of the 10 amendments in the BOR that was not an individual right. That should raise an eyebrow in those that contend it's not an individual right but it doesn't because they aren't interested in that. They're simply interested in banning guns at any cost.

So, just as you can find people that will argue that the world is flat, you can find people that will argue the 2nd isn't an individual right.

I'm happy about the recent Circuit Court ruling; the longer it stands, the better. If it goes to the SC, I feel certain the ruling will be upheld and that would be even better.

lazs2 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:21:38 AM »

I think that it is important to try to make a case for the government.... If you did feel that it was not an individual right then...

You would have to believe that the second was the only place where "people" meant "government"...

More importantly... you would have to believe that the second was a guarantee that the government could always arm itself...

Pretty silly. Why not another amendment to guarantee that the government could make laws?

Nope.. it is an individual right. They leaned to heavily on militias because they were more afraid of big government than anything else but it is an individual right.

lazs

midnight Target · « **Reply #5 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:24:10 AM »

Yea, just a bunch of silly "flat earthers".

Quote

1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms

Quote

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

Toad · « **Reply #6 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:47:06 AM »

Oh, you flat earth society folks have had some success twisting the language and meaning.

It looks like that may have come to an end though.

Tell me MT, can you cite an instance where the other 9 amendments in the BOR are not held to be individual rights?

Can you show me any quotations from the founders that indicate the right to bear arms is not an individual right?

Can you show where the state constitutions of the original 13 signatory states didn't protect the right to bear arms as an individual right?

The evidence is overwhelming. Overwhelming.

But I acknowledge that there are special interest groups that have and will attempt to subvert the true constitutional meaning of the 2nd amendment. I don't think that they do this through ignorance, so it's probably not fair to characterize them as flat earth people.

They're more in the line of dictators.

lazs2 · « **Reply #7 on:** March 22, 2007, 08:52:02 AM »

If you read miller you will see that the case was not even represented with miller or his attorney... The SC were conned into believing that a sawed off shotgun had no utility as a weapon for war. This was wrong of course but they didn't know that.

The DC ruling flatly states that it is an individual right.... so.. who are we to believe... the KKK and jim crow era SC that admited to not knowing anything about firearms or.. the one who spent the time to study it from BOTH sides?

In the miller case it was noted that one of the SC judges had a submachine gun in their closet at home... He was told that the law would never apply to him.

lazs

Toad · « **Reply #8 on:** March 22, 2007, 09:08:07 AM »

Oh, btw... have you ever examined how Miller went down?

Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the U.S. Supreme Court. The SC never read or heard the defendants' views, because they were not represented in any form. Doesn't that seem a bit strange to you MT? The decision was handed down without the defendants lawyer even being there?

Do you think it right that the court heard only one side of the matter, the government's side?

You do realize that the SC did not accept most of the government's arguments andbased its conclusion on a small part of the government's argument?

You realize how fatuous it is that the SC declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)? This after shotguns were a major player in the civil war and the US issued this gun:

By the end of World War I, the Army had 19,600 Model 97s on hand; you'd think the SC might have been made aware of that and taken that into consideration if Miller had been represented at the case.

The entire Miller decision rests on the SC viewing a "sawed off" shotgun as not being a military weapon. Anyone can see that is simply untrue. Anyone.

Yeager · « **Reply #9 on:** March 22, 2007, 09:44:51 AM »

Bottom line = Fear anyone who wants you unarmed.

RATTFINK · « **Reply #10 on:** March 22, 2007, 10:19:29 AM »

Man I love TEXAS

Sel Defense Bill closer to becoming law

midnight Target · « **Reply #11 on:** March 22, 2007, 10:26:07 AM »

So the Supreme Court is a bunch of dictators then or are they "flat earthers"? And 1983 was the "jim crow" era?

LOL

Do you think a citizen should have the right to own a nuclear device?

midnight Target · « **Reply #12 on:** March 22, 2007, 10:34:13 AM »

Oh look, more flat earthers!

Quote

Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."

U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Chairboy · « **Reply #13 on:** March 22, 2007, 10:48:45 AM »

MT, please answer the question posed above: Which of the other 9 bills of right don't apply to the individual?

Toad · « **Reply #14 on:** March 22, 2007, 10:51:53 AM »

Which of of the other first 10 amendments is not an individual right?

What writings of the founders have you found that indicate the 2nd is not an indidvidual right?

Which of the early state constitutions do not make the right to bear arms and individual right?

Do you see any flaws in the way US v Miller was heard and decided?