Origins of the Right to Bear Arms

Too often, public debate on gun control and related
issues seems to takes place in a historical vacuum.
Yet, as Second Amendment scholar and attorney
Stephen P. Halbrook shows, Americans' right to keep
and bear arms — institutionalized by the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution — grew out of a
rich political and philosophical tradition that
dates back to the origins of Western Civilization.
In the 4th century B.C., for example, Greek
philosophers Plato and Aristotle, despite their
profound differences, shared the belief that an
armed populace was essential for preventing the
imposition of tyranny. A few centuries later, Roman
lawyer Cicero warned that replacing the private
ownership of weapons with standing armies was
contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire. In
Renaissance Italy, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527)
argued that an armed public promotes civic virtue,
which in turn promotes responsible arms use. In
16th century France, political philosopher Jean
Bodin (1530–1596) argued that disarming the
citizenry helped create an absolute monarchy.
Across the English Channel, philosophers Thomas
Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704) also
shared the view that an armed populace deters tyranny.

Similar views were reflected in the English legal
tradition, the precursor to the American legal
system. As far back as the rule of Alfred (871–899),
the English common law presumed that an armed
populace was desirable for ensuring security. So
entrenched was this belief that the bearing of arms
was made a citizen's legal duty. However, as
Englishmen sought greater political freedom, the
monarchy came to feel threatened by an armed
populace and sought to curtail private ownership
of weapons. Both the Magna Carta (1215) and the
English Declaration of Rights (1688) grew out of
the struggle of armed Englishmen.

Influenced by these traditions, the American
colonists insisted that Britain recognize their
common-law right of individuals to own and use
arms in self-defense against tyranny. British gun
restrictions in colonies — aimed first at Native
Americans and later extended to the white colonists
during Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 — were therefore
bound to provoke conflict. After the American
Revolution, the Federalists promised that the new
government would have no power to disarm the
populace. The Anti-Federalists, who were especially
leery of a strong central government, feared that
a standing army and select militia would come to
overpower the people. These concerns led to the
ratification of the federal Bill of Rights in 1791.


From the ratification of the Constitution to the
Civil War, the act of keeping and bearing arms,
including firearms, was treated as a virtually
unquestioned right of each individual citizen —
for self-defense as well as for subsistence hunting.
That the Second Amendment recognized an individual
right to keep and bear arms was not an issue for
partisan politics, and the courts consistently so
held. The only exception to this rule, of course,
appeared in the context of slavery.


To disarm slaves as well as black freemen, certain
courts originated the view that the Second Amendment
applied only to citizens rather than to all of the
people, and that the Second Amendment did not apply
to the states. These decisions were aberrations
intended to prevent black liberation. Most
commentaries and courts that analyzed the Second
Amendment treated all individuals as possessing the
right to bear arms; they also construed it as a
restraint on state and federal power. After the
Civil War, judicial commentators continued to
interpret the Second Amendment as protection of an
individual right from both state and federal
infringement. The right to keep and bear arms, and
other freedoms in the Bill of Rights, were viewed
as common-law rights explicitly protected by the
Constitution.


Debates about the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 play an important
role in clarifying how the right to bear arms was
perceived following the Civil War. The importance
of this debate is heightened by the fact that Southern
blacks found their right to bear arms violated and
sought federal protection under the auspices of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

State, Federal and Supreme Court Decisions

Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,
the bearing of arms and other civil rights were deemed
as protected by the Constitution. But after the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the end
of Reconstruction, the Supreme Court took a restrictive
view of the extent to which the federal government
could protect civil rights. Still, the Court continued
to treat the right to have arms as a fundamental right
and vindicated the right to use deadly force in
self-defense. Then, in United States v. Miller (1939)
the Court held that the Second Amendment protected the
right to keep and bear militia-type arms and relied on
case law holding that all citizens were members of the
militia. More recently, the Court has also alluded to
the right to have arms as a specific guarantee
provided in the Constitution.


Immediately following Reconstruction, the Second
Amendment was viewed only as a restriction on
Congress and not the creation of a right. The right
to bear arms was not incorporated through the
Fourteenth Amendment and states had to make laws
regarding it. Furthermore, the Court clarified the
regulation of weapons regarded as modified and those
which were not ordinarily used for militia purposes.


As the Court began to incorporate more of the Bill
of Rights in the twentieth century, the possibility
of incorporating the Second Amendment was revived.
Although the right to bear arms has yet to be
incorporated, Halbrook discusses several cases which
favor the possibility that it one day might be. One
of the ways he shows this is through penumbras, by
which the Court uses "shadows" cast by amendments
constituting the Bill of Rights to extend certain
rights to the states.


Without the incorporation of the Second Amendment,
state court decisions regarding the right to bear
arms remain crucial. Halbrook offers a brief survey
of some of the most important state decisions since
Reconstruction, attempting to find some consensus
on the issue. Particularly interesting are the
state judicial decisions regarding the right to
carry a concealed weapon and regarding the definition
of what an "arm" is. Lastly, Halbrook explains the
continued swing since Reconstruction of state
judicial decisions toward, and away from, the right
to bear arms.



Stephen Halbrook, one of the many lawyer specializing
in constitutional law whose logic and common sense
infuriates liberals.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/

His book documenting the history of the Second
Amendment from the moment it was being prepared,
though history, from a legal perspective.

http://independent.org/tii/content/b...riefTEMBA.html

Yeah, but it's unclear that the 2nd Amendment gives
Americans the right to bear arms. Maybe bear hugs,
but not arms.

The modern version:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The original version:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the difference? If it's not clear, check the following link. It's a
fairly well
balanced discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"N1EE" wrote in message
m...
Origins of the Right to Bear Arms

Too often, public debate on gun control and related
issues seems to takes place in a historical vacuum.
Yet, as Second Amendment scholar and attorney
Stephen P. Halbrook shows, Americans' right to keep
and bear arms - institutionalized by the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - grew out of a
rich political and philosophical tradition that
dates back to the origins of Western Civilization.
In the 4th century B.C., for example, Greek
philosophers Plato and Aristotle, despite their
profound differences, shared the belief that an
armed populace was essential for preventing the
imposition of tyranny. A few centuries later, Roman
lawyer Cicero warned that replacing the private
ownership of weapons with standing armies was
contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire. In
Renaissance Italy, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
argued that an armed public promotes civic virtue,
which in turn promotes responsible arms use. In
16th century France, political philosopher Jean
Bodin (1530-1596) argued that disarming the
citizenry helped create an absolute monarchy.
Across the English Channel, philosophers Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) also
shared the view that an armed populace deters tyranny.

Similar views were reflected in the English legal
tradition, the precursor to the American legal
system. As far back as the rule of Alfred (871-899),
the English common law presumed that an armed
populace was desirable for ensuring security. So
entrenched was this belief that the bearing of arms
was made a citizen's legal duty. However, as
Englishmen sought greater political freedom, the
monarchy came to feel threatened by an armed
populace and sought to curtail private ownership
of weapons. Both the Magna Carta (1215) and the
English Declaration of Rights (1688) grew out of
the struggle of armed Englishmen.

Influenced by these traditions, the American
colonists insisted that Britain recognize their
common-law right of individuals to own and use
arms in self-defense against tyranny. British gun
restrictions in colonies - aimed first at Native
Americans and later extended to the white colonists
during Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 - were therefore
bound to provoke conflict. After the American
Revolution, the Federalists promised that the new
government would have no power to disarm the
populace. The Anti-Federalists, who were especially
leery of a strong central government, feared that
a standing army and select militia would come to
overpower the people. These concerns led to the
ratification of the federal Bill of Rights in 1791.


From the ratification of the Constitution to the
Civil War, the act of keeping and bearing arms,
including firearms, was treated as a virtually
unquestioned right of each individual citizen -
for self-defense as well as for subsistence hunting.
That the Second Amendment recognized an individual
right to keep and bear arms was not an issue for
partisan politics, and the courts consistently so
held. The only exception to this rule, of course,
appeared in the context of slavery.


To disarm slaves as well as black freemen, certain
courts originated the view that the Second Amendment
applied only to citizens rather than to all of the
people, and that the Second Amendment did not apply
to the states. These decisions were aberrations
intended to prevent black liberation. Most
commentaries and courts that analyzed the Second
Amendment treated all individuals as possessing the
right to bear arms; they also construed it as a
restraint on state and federal power. After the
Civil War, judicial commentators continued to
interpret the Second Amendment as protection of an
individual right from both state and federal
infringement. The right to keep and bear arms, and
other freedoms in the Bill of Rights, were viewed
as common-law rights explicitly protected by the
Constitution.


Debates about the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 play an important
role in clarifying how the right to bear arms was
perceived following the Civil War. The importance
of this debate is heightened by the fact that Southern
blacks found their right to bear arms violated and
sought federal protection under the auspices of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

State, Federal and Supreme Court Decisions

Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,
the bearing of arms and other civil rights were deemed
as protected by the Constitution. But after the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the end
of Reconstruction, the Supreme Court took a restrictive
view of the extent to which the federal government
could protect civil rights. Still, the Court continued
to treat the right to have arms as a fundamental right
and vindicated the right to use deadly force in
self-defense. Then, in United States v. Miller (1939)
the Court held that the Second Amendment protected the
right to keep and bear militia-type arms and relied on
case law holding that all citizens were members of the
militia. More recently, the Court has also alluded to
the right to have arms as a specific guarantee
provided in the Constitution.


Immediately following Reconstruction, the Second
Amendment was viewed only as a restriction on
Congress and not the creation of a right. The right
to bear arms was not incorporated through the
Fourteenth Amendment and states had to make laws
regarding it. Furthermore, the Court clarified the
regulation of weapons regarded as modified and those
which were not ordinarily used for militia purposes.


As the Court began to incorporate more of the Bill
of Rights in the twentieth century, the possibility
of incorporating the Second Amendment was revived.
Although the right to bear arms has yet to be
incorporated, Halbrook discusses several cases which
favor the possibility that it one day might be. One
of the ways he shows this is through penumbras, by
which the Court uses "shadows" cast by amendments
constituting the Bill of Rights to extend certain
rights to the states.


Without the incorporation of the Second Amendment,
state court decisions regarding the right to bear
arms remain crucial. Halbrook offers a brief survey
of some of the most important state decisions since
Reconstruction, attempting to find some consensus
on the issue. Particularly interesting are the
state judicial decisions regarding the right to
carry a concealed weapon and regarding the definition
of what an "arm" is. Lastly, Halbrook explains the
continued swing since Reconstruction of state
judicial decisions toward, and away from, the right
to bear arms.



Stephen Halbrook, one of the many lawyer specializing
in constitutional law whose logic and common sense
infuriates liberals.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/

His book documenting the history of the Second
Amendment from the moment it was being prepared,
though history, from a legal perspective.

http://independent.org/tii/content/b...riefTEMBA.html

A well armed populace is the only effective control the citizen has over a
despotic ruling class, and even that doesn't work all the time, ie: the
current resident at 1600 Penneslyvania Blvd.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeah, but it's unclear that the 2nd Amendment gives
Americans the right to bear arms. Maybe bear hugs,
but not arms.

The modern version:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The original version:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the difference? If it's not clear, check the following link. It's a
fairly well
balanced discussion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ates_Constitut
ion

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"N1EE" wrote in message
m...
Origins of the Right to Bear Arms

Too often, public debate on gun control and related
issues seems to takes place in a historical vacuum.
Yet, as Second Amendment scholar and attorney
Stephen P. Halbrook shows, Americans' right to keep
and bear arms - institutionalized by the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - grew out of a
rich political and philosophical tradition that
dates back to the origins of Western Civilization.
In the 4th century B.C., for example, Greek
philosophers Plato and Aristotle, despite their
profound differences, shared the belief that an
armed populace was essential for preventing the
imposition of tyranny. A few centuries later, Roman
lawyer Cicero warned that replacing the private
ownership of weapons with standing armies was
contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire. In
Renaissance Italy, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
argued that an armed public promotes civic virtue,
which in turn promotes responsible arms use. In
16th century France, political philosopher Jean
Bodin (1530-1596) argued that disarming the
citizenry helped create an absolute monarchy.
Across the English Channel, philosophers Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) also
shared the view that an armed populace deters tyranny.

Similar views were reflected in the English legal
tradition, the precursor to the American legal
system. As far back as the rule of Alfred (871-899),
the English common law presumed that an armed
populace was desirable for ensuring security. So
entrenched was this belief that the bearing of arms
was made a citizen's legal duty. However, as
Englishmen sought greater political freedom, the
monarchy came to feel threatened by an armed
populace and sought to curtail private ownership
of weapons. Both the Magna Carta (1215) and the
English Declaration of Rights (1688) grew out of
the struggle of armed Englishmen.

Influenced by these traditions, the American
colonists insisted that Britain recognize their
common-law right of individuals to own and use
arms in self-defense against tyranny. British gun
restrictions in colonies - aimed first at Native
Americans and later extended to the white colonists
during Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 - were therefore
bound to provoke conflict. After the American
Revolution, the Federalists promised that the new
government would have no power to disarm the
populace. The Anti-Federalists, who were especially
leery of a strong central government, feared that
a standing army and select militia would come to
overpower the people. These concerns led to the
ratification of the federal Bill of Rights in 1791.


From the ratification of the Constitution to the
Civil War, the act of keeping and bearing arms,
including firearms, was treated as a virtually
unquestioned right of each individual citizen -
for self-defense as well as for subsistence hunting.
That the Second Amendment recognized an individual
right to keep and bear arms was not an issue for
partisan politics, and the courts consistently so
held. The only exception to this rule, of course,
appeared in the context of slavery.


To disarm slaves as well as black freemen, certain
courts originated the view that the Second Amendment
applied only to citizens rather than to all of the
people, and that the Second Amendment did not apply
to the states. These decisions were aberrations
intended to prevent black liberation. Most
commentaries and courts that analyzed the Second
Amendment treated all individuals as possessing the
right to bear arms; they also construed it as a
restraint on state and federal power. After the
Civil War, judicial commentators continued to
interpret the Second Amendment as protection of an
individual right from both state and federal
infringement. The right to keep and bear arms, and
other freedoms in the Bill of Rights, were viewed
as common-law rights explicitly protected by the
Constitution.


Debates about the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 play an important
role in clarifying how the right to bear arms was
perceived following the Civil War. The importance
of this debate is heightened by the fact that Southern
blacks found their right to bear arms violated and
sought federal protection under the auspices of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

State, Federal and Supreme Court Decisions

Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,
the bearing of arms and other civil rights were deemed
as protected by the Constitution. But after the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the end
of Reconstruction, the Supreme Court took a restrictive
view of the extent to which the federal government
could protect civil rights. Still, the Court continued
to treat the right to have arms as a fundamental right
and vindicated the right to use deadly force in
self-defense. Then, in United States v. Miller (1939)
the Court held that the Second Amendment protected the
right to keep and bear militia-type arms and relied on
case law holding that all citizens were members of the
militia. More recently, the Court has also alluded to
the right to have arms as a specific guarantee
provided in the Constitution.


Immediately following Reconstruction, the Second
Amendment was viewed only as a restriction on
Congress and not the creation of a right. The right
to bear arms was not incorporated through the
Fourteenth Amendment and states had to make laws
regarding it. Furthermore, the Court clarified the
regulation of weapons regarded as modified and those
which were not ordinarily used for militia purposes.


As the Court began to incorporate more of the Bill
of Rights in the twentieth century, the possibility
of incorporating the Second Amendment was revived.
Although the right to bear arms has yet to be
incorporated, Halbrook discusses several cases which
favor the possibility that it one day might be. One
of the ways he shows this is through penumbras, by
which the Court uses "shadows" cast by amendments
constituting the Bill of Rights to extend certain
rights to the states.


Without the incorporation of the Second Amendment,
state court decisions regarding the right to bear
arms remain crucial. Halbrook offers a brief survey
of some of the most important state decisions since
Reconstruction, attempting to find some consensus
on the issue. Particularly interesting are the
state judicial decisions regarding the right to
carry a concealed weapon and regarding the definition
of what an "arm" is. Lastly, Halbrook explains the
continued swing since Reconstruction of state
judicial decisions toward, and away from, the right
to bear arms.



Stephen Halbrook, one of the many lawyer specializing
in constitutional law whose logic and common sense
infuriates liberals.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/

His book documenting the history of the Second
Amendment from the moment it was being prepared,
though history, from a legal perspective.

http://independent.org/tii/content/b...riefTEMBA.html

Heh... true, but that's not what the 2nd says. Of course, I'm flexible
in my thinking on this, given your comment.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"The Carrolls" wrote in message
...
A well armed populace is the only effective control the citizen has over a
despotic ruling class, and even that doesn't work all the time, ie: the
current resident at 1600 Penneslyvania Blvd.
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Yeah, but it's unclear that the 2nd Amendment gives
Americans the right to bear arms. Maybe bear hugs,
but not arms.

The modern version:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The original version:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the difference? If it's not clear, check the following link. It's a
fairly well
balanced discussion.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...ates_Constitut
ion

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"N1EE" wrote in message
m...
Origins of the Right to Bear Arms

Too often, public debate on gun control and related
issues seems to takes place in a historical vacuum.
Yet, as Second Amendment scholar and attorney
Stephen P. Halbrook shows, Americans' right to keep
and bear arms - institutionalized by the Second
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution - grew out of a
rich political and philosophical tradition that
dates back to the origins of Western Civilization.
In the 4th century B.C., for example, Greek
philosophers Plato and Aristotle, despite their
profound differences, shared the belief that an
armed populace was essential for preventing the
imposition of tyranny. A few centuries later, Roman
lawyer Cicero warned that replacing the private
ownership of weapons with standing armies was
contributing to the fall of the Roman Empire. In
Renaissance Italy, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
argued that an armed public promotes civic virtue,
which in turn promotes responsible arms use. In
16th century France, political philosopher Jean
Bodin (1530-1596) argued that disarming the
citizenry helped create an absolute monarchy.
Across the English Channel, philosophers Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1679) and John Locke (1632-1704) also
shared the view that an armed populace deters tyranny.

Similar views were reflected in the English legal
tradition, the precursor to the American legal
system. As far back as the rule of Alfred (871-899),
the English common law presumed that an armed
populace was desirable for ensuring security. So
entrenched was this belief that the bearing of arms
was made a citizen's legal duty. However, as
Englishmen sought greater political freedom, the
monarchy came to feel threatened by an armed
populace and sought to curtail private ownership
of weapons. Both the Magna Carta (1215) and the
English Declaration of Rights (1688) grew out of
the struggle of armed Englishmen.

Influenced by these traditions, the American
colonists insisted that Britain recognize their
common-law right of individuals to own and use
arms in self-defense against tyranny. British gun
restrictions in colonies - aimed first at Native
Americans and later extended to the white colonists
during Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 - were therefore
bound to provoke conflict. After the American
Revolution, the Federalists promised that the new
government would have no power to disarm the
populace. The Anti-Federalists, who were especially
leery of a strong central government, feared that
a standing army and select militia would come to
overpower the people. These concerns led to the
ratification of the federal Bill of Rights in 1791.


From the ratification of the Constitution to the
Civil War, the act of keeping and bearing arms,
including firearms, was treated as a virtually
unquestioned right of each individual citizen -
for self-defense as well as for subsistence hunting.
That the Second Amendment recognized an individual
right to keep and bear arms was not an issue for
partisan politics, and the courts consistently so
held. The only exception to this rule, of course,
appeared in the context of slavery.


To disarm slaves as well as black freemen, certain
courts originated the view that the Second Amendment
applied only to citizens rather than to all of the
people, and that the Second Amendment did not apply
to the states. These decisions were aberrations
intended to prevent black liberation. Most
commentaries and courts that analyzed the Second
Amendment treated all individuals as possessing the
right to bear arms; they also construed it as a
restraint on state and federal power. After the
Civil War, judicial commentators continued to
interpret the Second Amendment as protection of an
individual right from both state and federal
infringement. The right to keep and bear arms, and
other freedoms in the Bill of Rights, were viewed
as common-law rights explicitly protected by the
Constitution.


Debates about the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment
and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 play an important
role in clarifying how the right to bear arms was
perceived following the Civil War. The importance
of this debate is heightened by the fact that Southern
blacks found their right to bear arms violated and
sought federal protection under the auspices of the
Fourteenth Amendment.

State, Federal and Supreme Court Decisions

Prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment,
the bearing of arms and other civil rights were deemed
as protected by the Constitution. But after the
adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the end
of Reconstruction, the Supreme Court took a restrictive
view of the extent to which the federal government
could protect civil rights. Still, the Court continued
to treat the right to have arms as a fundamental right
and vindicated the right to use deadly force in
self-defense. Then, in United States v. Miller (1939)
the Court held that the Second Amendment protected the
right to keep and bear militia-type arms and relied on
case law holding that all citizens were members of the
militia. More recently, the Court has also alluded to
the right to have arms as a specific guarantee
provided in the Constitution.


Immediately following Reconstruction, the Second
Amendment was viewed only as a restriction on
Congress and not the creation of a right. The right
to bear arms was not incorporated through the
Fourteenth Amendment and states had to make laws
regarding it. Furthermore, the Court clarified the
regulation of weapons regarded as modified and those
which were not ordinarily used for militia purposes.


As the Court began to incorporate more of the Bill
of Rights in the twentieth century, the possibility
of incorporating the Second Amendment was revived.
Although the right to bear arms has yet to be
incorporated, Halbrook discusses several cases which
favor the possibility that it one day might be. One
of the ways he shows this is through penumbras, by
which the Court uses "shadows" cast by amendments
constituting the Bill of Rights to extend certain
rights to the states.


Without the incorporation of the Second Amendment,
state court decisions regarding the right to bear
arms remain crucial. Halbrook offers a brief survey
of some of the most important state decisions since
Reconstruction, attempting to find some consensus
on the issue. Particularly interesting are the
state judicial decisions regarding the right to
carry a concealed weapon and regarding the definition
of what an "arm" is. Lastly, Halbrook explains the
continued swing since Reconstruction of state
judicial decisions toward, and away from, the right
to bear arms.



Stephen Halbrook, one of the many lawyer specializing
in constitutional law whose logic and common sense
infuriates liberals.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/

His book documenting the history of the Second
Amendment from the moment it was being prepared,
though history, from a legal perspective.

http://independent.org/tii/content/b...riefTEMBA.html

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Yeah, but it's unclear that the 2nd Amendment gives
Americans the right to bear arms. Maybe bear hugs,
but not arms.

The modern version:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The original version:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the difference? If it's not clear, check the following link. It's a
fairly well
balanced discussion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

An earlier form of the amendment included a third clause to the effect
that the amendment was to be qualified with respect to conscientious
objectors, so that the amendment wouldn't be interpreted by some of the
States as permitting the States to rely on the new amendment and require
conscientious objectors to serve in the various State militias. This
clause was deleted during subsequent discussions as being unnecessary.
However, it clearly reveals what the writers had in mind when the
drafted the clause: "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA being necessary to the
security of a free state...." - They were considering the right to bear
arms in the context of the rights of the States to maintain their
respective militias.

Thus, to simply ignore the first clause, i.e., "A well-regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free State....", or to throw it
away as just an unimportant side issue not relevant to the correct
interpretation of the meaning or purpose of the amendment, is, in the
context of the actual historical record re the drafting of the amendment
itself, clearly absurd!

Jim

And, I agree. Guns are currently regulated for individual owners.
However, I'm not sure it'll make much difference either way.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Yeah, but it's unclear that the 2nd Amendment gives
Americans the right to bear arms. Maybe bear hugs,
but not arms.

The modern version:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The original version:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the difference? If it's not clear, check the following link. It's a
fairly well
balanced discussion.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_...s_Constitution

An earlier form of the amendment included a third clause to the effect
that the amendment was to be qualified with respect to conscientious
objectors, so that the amendment wouldn't be interpreted by some of the
States as permitting the States to rely on the new amendment and require
conscientious objectors to serve in the various State militias. This
clause was deleted during subsequent discussions as being unnecessary.
However, it clearly reveals what the writers had in mind when the
drafted the clause: "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA being necessary to the
security of a free state...." - They were considering the right to bear
arms in the context of the rights of the States to maintain their
respective militias.

Thus, to simply ignore the first clause, i.e., "A well-regulated militia
being necessary to the security of a free State....", or to throw it
away as just an unimportant side issue not relevant to the correct
interpretation of the meaning or purpose of the amendment, is, in the
context of the actual historical record re the drafting of the amendment
itself, clearly absurd!

Jim

N1EE wrote:
Origins of the Right to Bear Arms

Too often, public debate on gun control and related
issues seems to takes place in a historical vacuum.

Almost *all* public debates take place in a vacuum of all knowledge or
even common sense. It seems to be a required condition, maybe it's just
the lowest common denominator?

Still, this seems to be very plain English

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."

Which is obviously baloney, because the people's right to keep & bear
arms is infringed 99 ways from Sunday. Starting with the fact that guns
cost money! But let's look at some historical context.

The Consitution was enacted for an agrarian democracy, plagued by
squabbling neighbors and threatened by colonial powers. The struggle
between the Federalists and the Republican-Democrats was just beginning.
Pretty much every gainfully employed citizen already had a gun, so it
was useless to try and undo that. Nor would it have been desirable when
there was no organized police. In short, things were very different.

The Constitution has changed and evolved in lots of ways over the
centuries. For example, there was no prohibition against a State
seceding. The Constitution does not grant the federal gov't the power to
invade & subdue individual states which do not comply with it's
wishes. But that is exactly what happened. The right to keep and bear
arms has been amended (which is a bit politer than infringed) under law
so many times that it is nearly non existant. And the gun-o-phobes still
aren't happy. At some point in the not too distant future, gun ownership
for the average citizen will be illegal. Then they'll start on dogs....

Given the way people drive, it sometimes occurs to me that the Founding
Fathers might rethink their opinion about whether the average citizen
should be allowed to have a gun. But that doesn't mean I like the situation.

Regards- Doug King

Some regulation of gun ownership is warranted as long as it is not
restrictive or expensive. Most Western states, excluding California,
have reasonable restrictions. For example, cases of mental illness
and people with felony convictions are good reasons to deny permits.

Many states have, and all states should have, "shall issue" provisions
for the permit process. In other words, if you are a responsible
person, you should be able to get a permit if you apply for one. Many
states offer reciprocity also which makes it legal to carry across
state lines.

However, in Massachusetts, the costs for a permit is high on
purpose--to deny people this right. Few permits are issued, and
reissues of permits to people who had permits in the past without
incident, have been denied without reasonable cause.

Massachusetts also has a mandatory 1 year sentence for people found
transporting guns across the state. This state does everything in
it's power to limit gun ownership and gun sales; it has deliberately
forced many gun dealers out of business and has placed restrictions on
manufacturers with ridiculous safety requirements. This will change
as the lawsuits continue to pile up.

Another nearby state, Rhode Island, has a 10 year sentence for
unlicensed people carrying guns through the state, that makes peaceble
carry through the state a serious issue.

There is a pro gun trend reversing the swing against gun control. I
can give you three examples. Missouri now issues concealed weapons
permits. Kansas, prohibited Concealed Carry until March 27th 2004.
They just passed a law allowing carrying concealed weapons--reversing
previous decisions. The vote was overwhelmingly in favor of it. I
expect they will join their neighboring states in allowing
reciprocity. I don't know all the details, but Washington has a new
law that is less restrictive and will likely allow reciprocity.

The courts, and precidents set in the past, make it impossible for the
liberals to permanently take away this consitutionaly right. Most
people want the right to lawfully protect themselves.

Bart Senior


DSK wrote

so many times that it is nearly non existant. And the gun-o-phobes still
aren't happy. At some point in the not too distant future, gun ownership
for the average citizen will be illegal. Then they'll start on dogs....

Regards- Doug King