Right to Bear Arms - History

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Well, that's a different argument.

However, in law, every word in a statute or constitutional provision is presumed to have purpose, meaning, and effect. And of all of the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights, the Second is the only one containing an explanatory preamble. The law cannot presume that it's an accident. There must be a reason.

The that, although it appears that nunchuks are protected even if switch blades are not.

There was no discussion of the 2nd Amendment at the Constitutional Convention. Guess why?

Madison didn't believe ANY of the Bill of Rights were necessary even though he wrote them. So perusing his language in them with a fine tooth comb to discern their meaning is a bizarre pastime.

This article gives a good overview of why the Convention thought a Bill of Rights unnecessary, perhaps dangerous and clearly contrary to the philosophy of the Framers: http://www.claremont.org/repository/doclib/James%20Madison%20and%20the%20Framing.pdf

Objections in some of the State ratification conventions to the lack of a Bill of Rights made it politically expedient to include one with Madison's innovative 9th Amendment clarifying that rights exist separate from any written declaration of them. Alas, this amendment has been almost completely ignored and the mass of people and seemingly the majority of judges believe we have rights because the Bill of Rights or other parts of the Constitution "gave" them to us. The Framers would be appalled at such a proposition.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
perhaps the ambiguity was deliberate as you say, this could have been done in order to give individual states more leeway in deciding right to arms articles in their own constitutions.

Or it could be to allow the federal government some leeway in limiting private arms ownership, such as artillery. But the record is scant.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Or it could be to allow the federal government some leeway in limiting private arms ownership, such as artillery. But the record is scant.

Or it could mean what the supreme court says it means.
Just a thought.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There was no discussion of the 2nd Amendment at the Constitutional Convention. Guess why?

Madison didn't believe ANY of the Bill of Rights were necessary even though he wrote them. So perusing his language in them with a fine tooth comb to discern their meaning is a bizarre pastime.

This article gives a good overview of why ...[text shortened]... of the Constitution "gave" them to us. The Framers would be appalled at such a proposition.

I agree in part actually. I always get a chuckle from advocates of strict interpretation and original intent (two very distinct doctrines often jumbled together) who argue (because they don't like the Roe decision) that privacy is a "judge made right" not found in the Constitution and therefor not enforceable against government as a matter of law. The 9th Amendment made it very clear that additional rights exist, and that the courts would have to sort out what those rights are. The point was to end debate on those "enumerated." They were indeed afraid that by listing some of them that certain people in the future would interpret an intention to regard the list as exclusive. And so many conservatives will argue that the 9th is merely about states' rights, when in fact there is no mention of states in the 9th Amendment and that interpretation would render the 9th redundant with the 10th.

But I disagree that second amendment rights weren't discussed at the convention. In fact, what would later be referred to as "The Bill of Rights" was discussed at the convention in 1787, but was ultimately rejected.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Or it could mean what the supreme court says it means.
Just a thought.

You mean the current Supreme Court majority? Perhaps. But they did not cite evidence to support their decision. It was purely modern politics.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Or it could mean what the supreme court says it means.
Just a thought.

And incidentally, even whet they're saying it means is ambiguous.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
And incidentally, even whet they're saying it means is ambiguous.

I dont see how.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
I agree in part actually. I always get a chuckle from advocates of strict interpretation and original intent (two very distinct doctrines often jumbled together) who argue (because they don't like the Roe decision) that privacy is a "judge made right" not found in the Constitution and therefor not enforceable against government as a matter of law. The 9th A ...[text shortened]... e Bill of Rights" was discussed at the convention in 1787, but was ultimately rejected.

If you go to the link I gave and read the paragraph at the end of page 214 that extends into 215, you'll find that the discussion of a Bill of Rights at the Convention happened only five days before its conclusion and was exceedingly brief.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you go to the link I gave and read the paragraph at the end of page 214 that extends into 215, you'll find that the discussion of a Bill of Rights at the Convention happened only five days before its conclusion and was exceedingly brief.

As far as the official record is concerned, but Madison wrote letters about all sorts of off-record arguments. It was a hot topic, and the consensus behind the NRA view of gun rights greatly overstated. As I mentioned, there were plenty of gun regulations at the time. The NRA likes to make it sound like gun regulation is the creation of 20th century liberals.

Originally posted by no1marauder
There was no discussion of the 2nd Amendment at the Constitutional Convention. Guess why?

Madison didn't believe ANY of the Bill of Rights were necessary even though he wrote them. So perusing his language in them with a fine tooth comb to discern their meaning is a bizarre pastime.

This article gives a good overview of why ...[text shortened]... of the Constitution "gave" them to us. The Framers would be appalled at such a proposition.

From that:

"The most rational government will not find it a superfluous advantage to have the prejudices of the community on it's side." - James Madison

Interesting.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
I dont see how.

Well, the decision essentially decided that the 14th Amendment applies the rights to the states and that the right to individual self-defense is a "central component" of the Second Amendment. It does not say that it is overriding, and does not address the force and effect of the "well regulated militia" preface. It did not overturn the prior decisions excluding sawed-off shotguns and switch blades from the protection because they were not reasonably related to the maintenance of a "well regulated militia." So is the private ownership of a semi-automatic assault weapon protected? It's not clear. And if a weapon is protected, the impact on the regulations are not clear.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Well, the decision essentially decided that the 14th Amendment applies the rights to the states and that the right to individual self-defense is a "central component" of the Second Amendment. It does not say that it is overriding, and does not address the force and effect of the "well regulated militia" preface. It did not overturn the prior decisions exclu ...[text shortened]... 's not clear. And if a weapon is protected, the impact on the regulations are not clear.

what case are you talking about ? all I gathered from U.S. v. Miller was that he had to register the sawed off shot gun.

Further, the Court distinguished United States v.Miller,4 in which the Court upheld a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns, on the ground that Miller limited the type of weapon to which the Second Amendment right applied to those in common use for lawful purposes.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
You mean the current Supreme Court majority? Perhaps. But they did not cite evidence to support their decision. It was purely modern politics.

The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated

Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the

right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Moreover, the prefatory clause's history comported with the Court's interpretation, because the prefatory clause stemmed from the Anti-Federalists' concern that the federal government would disarm the people in order to disable the citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule.

Originally posted by Kunsoo
Well, the decision essentially decided that the 14th Amendment applies the rights to the states and that the right to individual self-defense is a "central component" of the Second Amendment. It does not say that it is overriding, and does not address the force and effect of the "well regulated militia" preface. It did not overturn the prior decisions exclu ...[text shortened]... 's not clear. And if a weapon is protected, the impact on the regulations are not clear.

What is a semi-automatic assault weapon? You mean like an AR-15? That's just a light rifle.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
What is a semi-automatic assault weapon? You mean like an AR-15? That's just a light rifle.

Thats what the left calls them. You should know that.😉