Individual's Right to Bear Arms at Issue

Sound Reasoning wrote:

The reality is, that back in the 1700's, our founding fathers were worried about the possibility of a strong person taking over the central federal government, and ceasing power as an American Dictator.
If you don't think that is a reasonable worry, then just look at Germany. It happen there. Germany was a democracy, and a personal named Adolph Hitler managed to gain control of the central government, and cease power as a Dictator.
Anyway, back to the real 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the concerned individual states, the right to fight back against any possible dictator. How would they fight? Within the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment to maintain their own well-regulated militia, and that the members of those well-regulated state militias, to store required defensive arms in their homes. Basically, stopping the central federal government from going house to house, ceasing arms, in an attempt to disarm the state militias.
The 2nd Amendment was NEVER meant to give any American the right to store an arsenal in their home, for their own PRIVATE needs.
Those are the facts, no how inconvenient they are for the NRA and its members.

You are blind as a bat:

"Who are these militia?[A]re they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American....[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

- Tenche Coxe, using the pseudonym "a Pennsylvanian", Feb. 20, 1788, Pennsylvania Gazette.

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

- Tenche Coxe,'Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' using the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1.

Mr. Coxe was a prominent Philadelphian and political economist who was named assistant secretary of the treasury in 1790, commissioner of revenue in 1792, and purveyor of public supplies in 1803. Whose series of newspaper articles were very much approved by both Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Madison.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALEGAL/Precedent/...

"...Whereupon the Senate proceeded to consider the said bill as in Committee of the Whole.

"On motion by Mr. Fessenden, to amend the bill by striking out in lines 132, 133, and 134, the words, "disarm the present organized militia of the Territory of Kansas, to recall all the United States arms therein distributed," and insert: recall all the United States arms heretofore distributed to the militia and people of the Territory of Kansas.

It was determined in the negative,
Yeas ... 13
Nays ... 28 ..."
"...And provided, That, until Congress shall have passed upon the validity of the said legislative assembly of Kansas, it shall be the duty of the President to use the military [Page 544] force in said Territory to preserve the peace, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, and protect persons and property therein and upon the national highways, in the State of Missouri or elsewhere, from unlawful seizures and searches.

""And be it further provided, That the President is required to disarm the present organized militia of the Territory of Kansas, to recall all the United States arms therein distributed, and to prevent armed men from going into the said Territory to disturb the public peace or to aid in the enforcement or resistance of real or pretended law."

It was determined in the affirmative,
Yeas ... 29
Nays ... 9 ..."

- Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, Aug. 7, 1856
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senat...

"...More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went...."

- U.S. Supreme Court decision of 1856 in Dred Scott v. Sandford.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/DredS...

1856 was apparently a very good year for the declaring of We The People's Right. For, the U.S. House and Senate had enacted the following;

"Sec. 16. And be it further enacted.... And in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared that no law ought ever to be made or be in force in said Territory that shall in any manner interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud previously proved. And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, to the liberty of speech and of the press, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and all other rights of person or property thereby declared and as thereby defined.

"Sec. 17. And be it further enacted, That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby, offered to the said convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejection, which, if accepted by the convention and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shall be obligatory on the United States and upon the said State of Kansas, to wit:...

- Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, SATURDAY, June 28, 1856.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Kansa...

"That, for the purpose of making an enumeration of the inhabitants, authorized to vote under the provisions of this act, an apportionment and an election of members of a convention to form a State constitution for Kansas, as hereinafter provided, five competent persons shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to be commissioners,a majority of whom shall constitute a quorum, for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this act, each of whom, before entering upon the duties of his office, shall take and subscribe an oath or affirmation that he will support the Constitution of the United States, and faithfully and impartially exercise and discharge the duties enjoined on him by this act .... Sec. 18. And be it further enacted, That inasmuch as the Constitution of the United States and the organic act of said Territory has secured to the inhabitants thereof certain inalienable rights, of which they cannot be deprived by any legislative enactment, therefore no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust; no law shall be in force or enforced in said Territory respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances; the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized; nor shall the rights of the people to keep and bear arms be infringed...."

"...It was determined in the affirmative,

Yeas ... 32

Nays ... 13

- Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, TUESDAY, July 8, 1856.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/Senat...

Self-Defense and the United States Supreme Court:

Wiggins v. State Of Utah, Oct. Term, 1876.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WigginsvStat...

Starr v. U.S., May 14, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StarrvUS1894...

Thompson v. U.S., Dec. 3, 1894.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ThompsonvUS1...

Allen v. U.S., April 8, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllenvUS1895...

Beard v. U.S., May 27, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BeardvUS1895...

Allison v. U.S., Dec. 16, 1895.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AllisonvUS18...

Smith v. U.S., March 2, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/SmithvUS1896...

Brown v. Walker, March 23, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownVsWalke...

Stevenson v. U.S., April 13, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/StevensonvUS...

Wallace v. U.S., April 20, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/WallacevUS18...

Rowe v. U.S., Nov. 30, 1896.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/RowevUS1896....

Patsone v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 1914.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/PatsonevPenn...

BROWN v. UNITED STATES, "if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence", 256 U.S. 335 (1921).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/BrownvUnited...

Missouri Pac. R. CO. v. David, U.S. Supreme Court, "He carried a pistol and sawed-off shot gun 'for the purpose of defending himself", Feb. 15, 1932
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/MissourivDav...

Adamson v. People Of State Of California, June 23, 1947.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/AdamsonvPeop...

"It was demanded by a great and overruling necessity...... This great law of necessity-of defence of self, of home, and of country-never was designed to be abrogated by any statute, or by any constitution."

- Mr.[(Formerly Major-General), Benjamin Franklin] Butler, ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, EX PARTE MILLIGAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Dec. Term, 1866.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/ExParteMilli...

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:

I fully support the 2nd Amendment. Even if it's meaning has been twisted by men with a need for penis enhancement.

Better than not having one, like YOU eh?

"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."

- Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/blissVcommon...

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.

- Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...

"The Constitution and laws of the United States "are the supreme law of the land," anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary, notwithstanding." Their supremacy is thus declared in express terms: "Whatever conflicts therewith has no operative or obligatory force. Allegiance to the United States, and loyalty to the United States Constitution and laws, are the paramount duty of every citizen. Within their legitimate sphere, they command the obedience of all, and no State Constitution or statute can absolve any one therefrom....As it is both the right and duty of every citizen to become fully informed upon all governmental affairs, so as to discharge his many political obligations intelligently at the ballot-box, and in other legitimate ways; and the freedom of the press and of speech are guaranteed to him for that as well as other essential purposes; and as the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances, and to keep and bear arms, cannot be lawfully abridged or infringed...”

- CHARGE TO THE GRAND JURY BY THE COURT, United States Circuit Court, DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, SPECIAL JULY TERM, PRESENT: HON. JOHN CATRON, An Associate Justice of Supreme Court of United States. 1861. JULY 10, 1861.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/USCir...

Sound Reasoning wrote:

The reality is, that back in the 1700's, our founding fathers were worried about the possibility of a strong person taking over the central federal government, and ceasing power as an American Dictator.
If you don't think that is a reasonable worry, then just look at Germany. It happen there. Germany was a democracy, and a personal named Adolph Hitler managed to gain control of the central government, and cease power as a Dictator.
Anyway, back to the real 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the concerned individual states, the right to fight back against any possible dictator. How would they fight? Within the guarantee of the 2nd Amendment to maintain their own well-regulated militia, and that the members of those well-regulated state militias, to store required defensive arms in their homes. Basically, stopping the central federal government from going house to house, ceasing arms, in an attempt to disarm the state militias.
The 2nd Amendment was NEVER meant to give any American the right to store an arsenal in their home, for their own PRIVATE needs.
Those are the facts, no how inconvenient they are for the NRA and its members.

Your statement is what's been in debate for all these years. It's all in the interpretation of the amendment. The judicial system is, and has been, split forever. Our nation's supreme court has interpreted the amendment to mean that state militia's can bear arms, while state courts have understood it to mean ordinary citizens. Me?? I say we should ALL be able to carry concealed weapons and use them to protect ourselves as well as our property. Most criminals have no trouble assaulting those they feel are unarmed and helpless; let them try accosting an armed citizen for a change. We need to take our streets back from the criminal element!! If the country's govorning bodies cannot come to a conclusion on the meaning, how can you???

GunShowOnTheNet wrote:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.
- Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...

Dude, I am all for our rights to carry concealed firearms, but YOU need help!!! I'll bet you waited years for this story just to post 50 times on the subject!!

Gunshow dude....

Your tough guy attitude makes the rest of us gun owners look bad. Chill out.

Gun Show,
Stop foaming at the mouth. You make the rest of us look nuts. Things have changed A LOT since the 1700's. That said, I still see the Second Amendment as granting me the right to own guns. Some reasonable (and I don't think Chicago or DC are reasonable) restrictions I can live with. I have no need for a fully automatic weapon with a 30 round clip. I have no problem with having to get a FOID card to buy a gun or ammunition. Jury is still out, so to speak, on the merits of Concealed Carry. Not sure I want to revert back to the days of the old west where fastest draw wins.

That said, I should be able to walk into Gander Mountain and buy whatever kind of firearm I want to suit my needs, whether it be for target or for hunting. Or for home defense.

Sound Reasoning wrote:

The 2nd Amendment was NEVER meant to give any American the right to store an arsenal in their home, for their own PRIVATE needs.
Those are the facts, no how inconvenient they are for the NRA and its members.

ALL sound legal interpretation has to start with THE TEXT of the law itself; and what matters there is basic grammar.

While the second amendment opens with an explanatory clause:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..."

it's main or declarative clause consists of:

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"[T]he people" found in the main clause absolutely suggests an individual right and not a collective right held by the state.

You only have to look to the nearby first amendment to see that this is true. Among other things, the first amendment protects "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Does anyone imagine that the people's right to peaceably assemble and petition belongs collectively to the states and not to individual citizens?

Ken in the Burbs wrote:

Gun Show,
Stop foaming at the mouth. You make the rest of us look nuts. Things have changed A LOT since the 1700's. That said, I still see the Second Amendment as granting me the right to own guns. Some reasonable (and I don't think Chicago or DC are reasonable) restrictions I can live with. I have no need for a fully automatic weapon with a 30 round clip. I have no problem with having to get a FOID card to buy a gun or ammunition. Jury is still out, so to speak, on the merits of Concealed Carry. Not sure I want to revert back to the days of the old west where fastest draw wins.
That said, I should be able to walk into Gander Mountain and buy whatever kind of firearm I want to suit my needs, whether it be for target or for hunting. Or for home defense.

Yeah, but I'M NOT communist-socialist minded >you<. What part of "shall NOT be infringed" do you NOT understand, communist-socialist?

Do you think that it honestly makes sense to give control of the means of defense. Over to the VERY ONES that you may need to use them against in the event they become corrupt? I for one, sure as hell do NOT.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is PARAMOUNT to ALL positive forms of government ... The citizens MUST rush tumultuously to ARMS..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.
http://gunshowonthenet.com/FederalistPapers/F...

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).
http://gunshowonthenet.com/2ALaw/CohensvVirgi...

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]
http://gunshowonthenet.com/AfterTheFact/NunnV...

You want "safety" - go to a communist or socialist country....

Brian wrote:

Gunshow dude....
Your tough guy attitude makes the rest of us gun owners look bad. Chill out.

You mean the SPINELESS ONES that let our right get DESTROYED in the first place? GO TO HELL.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

- Barry Goldwater

Manimal wrote:

<quoted text>
Dude, I am all for our rights to carry concealed firearms, but YOU need help!!! I'll bet you waited years for this story just to post 50 times on the subject!!

Yeah, your all for sitting back and letting our right get stripped away from us over the years, RIGHT? Sitting back and doing NOTHING, right?

Let us reword the Second Amendment to address a different Constitutional right and see where it takes us, OK?

"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the People to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

Since the first clause references "electorate" does that mean only enfranchised citizens who are qualified to vote have the right to keep and read books? That would eliminate all children and even women, since they were not entitled to vote when the Bill of Rights was ratified. And if the word "electorate" is defined as referring only to registered voters then the right to keep and read books is enjoyed only by those who are actually registered to vote.

The second clause refers to "maintenance of a free State". Does that limit the books the People are entitled to keep and read to those which promote said maintenance of the State? If so, the only books that the Constitutional right covers are those on the subjects of government, politics, and civic virtue. You can forget about works of fiction, comedy, poetry, cooking or any other such frippery. And don't even >think< about romantic novels.

Furthermore, since the Founding Fathers could not anticipate modern means of communication such as text-mail, e-mail, radio, and television you have no Constitutional right to receive information from any of those sources either.

All of these arguments are, of course, patently absurd, but they are identical to the logical contortions exhibited by those legal limbo-dancers who are politically unwilling or intellectually incapable of parsing the simple phrase

"... the right of the People .."!

There is something that most people are overlooking. If the gvt tries to take away the guns in a wide ban like some other countries have, we will have another civil war. There are a lot more of us that live by "pry 'em from my dead hands" motto than those that would just hand them over or sell back. Get real. American citizens that own firearms WILL NOT become subjects living in fear of criminals, be them hoodrats or the gvt. Give me liberty, or give me death. Don't forget about the blood of patriots, either.

When our economy is flushed down the toilet, and someone dies over a can of beans, you can believe me when I say firearm owners will be the only ones left. Try that chocolate town gestapo crud on us and see what happens.