Regarding Tench Coxe, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the govt was unable to supply militias with all the firearms they needed. Thus, they expected that each militiaman would supply his own personal rifle or musket and ammunition, for militia service. Furthermore, the Founders deliberations for the Constitution were concerned with national defense and maintaining internal social order, not with usage of firearms for personal reasons. Thus, Coxe's statement provides no support for your contention.
If the there is a fundamental right to own firearms for self defense in the home, based on English Common Law, then I think the 9th Amendment covers that.
Hello and thank-you for the analysis. In the book "On Virginia" by Thos. Jefferson he states that "all able-bodied men between 18 and 54 are AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED IN THE MILITIA"
Stop using the word “Government” as if we are talking about some kind of omnipotent megalith. Government is nothing but an abstraction of the mind, a legal fiction. We are talking about Government Actors. Government Actors are “people” that occupy positions of public trust who are charged with the preservation of public justice. Government Actors are servants, not masters. They are fiduciaries whose powers are delegated and limited. Government doesn’t grant me jack shit.
The reality may be even starker. What if our constitution isn't really a controlling document for our government? The pope ceded all the lands back to the crown after the revolution. In 1871 the USA became a corporation (when the government went bankrupt). The real controlling documents for the USA company are thought to be secretly held by the Bank of England, but no one knows. What we know is the USA company has paid lip service to the constitution while ignoring it in practice. Policy is what rules corporations. It was corporate policy in 1871 to make changes to the title and contents of the constitution unlawfully. Specifically, the title of the constitution said FOR the USA and now it's OF the USA. Changing the title like this is very important in contract law. It changes the constitution from a controlling document into a relic. In contract law, prepositions matter. So the policy of the USA corporation is to ignore the constitution and to do whatever would benefit the owners of the corporation, of course. That's how corporations work. They don't have laws or borders, they have policies. That's why the USA company ignores its laws and borders. That's why a corporation can never be a representative republic, and is why our government is so cynical and pernicious with regards to the rights of the populace. It doesn't believe we have any rights at all. They treat us as subjects of the crown of England which the Pope has owned for several hundred years. The movie Elizabeth is the story of how the pope came to dominate the crown and the entire west became a vassal state for the pope and his agents (frogs in Rev. 20) https://palamambron.substack.com/p/a-fruitful-meditation-of-rev-20-the
I figure I have the choice of defending myself and my property and family against all invaders. Otherwise why live? I don't need to fight over a constitution that the perps will just trounce as they see fit.
In today's vernacular, maybe it could be rewritten. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED so that they can if so desired establish well regulated militias for the security of a free state of existence.
Well done. If more folks would realize this. I addressed it sometime back and just re-released my August one with some updates due to the recent call for more restrictions that violate SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This one was at Lew Rockwell last year Those Forgotten and Ignored 13 Words: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/08/mark-reynolds/those-forgotten-and-ignored-13-words/ and this is my WHY THE MILTIA? post. I think you and your readers will find that they add to the debate. https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/why-the-militia I am surprised so many people are hung up on a standing army when the founding fathers did NOT have that intention in mind in the least bit. And yet there was one almost right away.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States...
Further, the law also includes female citizens but only if they are members of the National Guard.
The law specifies that the Militia consists of two parts: an "organized militia" which is the National Guard; and an "unorganized militia" which is everybody else.
It also DOES this which makes it part of the standing army which destroys the belief it is the militia. It was the National Defense Act of 1916 that fully modernized the National Guard, provided Federal funding for training, drills, annual training, and equipping. It did, however, stipulate that in return, the War Department and the Army gained far more control over the Militia; for example, the Army was now able to dictate what types of units would be raised in each State. The Act also removed the issue of Militia serving outside the United States by stating that when called into Federal service, the National Guard would be considered Federal troops. So can we quit calling the National Guard the militia?
This is a very well written article and touches on a concept entirely removed from contemporary American culture, and that is the constitution not granting rights to the people, but merely recognizing those rights and restraining the federal government, and after the passage of the 14th amendment, restraining the federal and state governments. I think the author missed one point. Article I section 10 specifically outlaws the states from keeping standing armies. "No state shall, without the consent of congress,....keep troops or ships of war in times of peace". I suppose one might argue that congress consented as it is the national guard, but it does seem to form the standing army the founders feared.
Van, thanks for pointing that out...I hadn't taken note of that before. As you say, I think the "without Consent of Congress" qualifier has been met via various federal acts regarding the National Guard (which ultimately made the Guard part of the federal US Army), but that language does give extra insight into the mindset of the framers.
For others' benefit, here's the full Article I Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
In 1967 with my lawn mower money I bought my first rifle a 22, my dad stayed in the car reading his newspaper. I show no ID and no background check was performed. In 1968 jewish groups funded and advocated for the Gun Control Act of 1968. jewish organizations were behind this act and all the other gun control acts that followed. Jews are the problem in America.
Psychopathic Control Freaks are the problem in America. Joe Biden isn't a Jew. I can make a list of these control freaks who aren't Jews. To place one group of people under a label, is error. Realize that there are CONTROL FREAKS in every race, religion, creed and sex. Stop thinking that one group is the problem. Problem: Psychopathic Control Freaks Rule Us
Joe Biden is a jewish poppet... He has more that 11 jews in his cabinet not to count other government posts. What about the Jewish Immigration Act of 1965???
"the Bill of Rights provides rights"??? No it doesn't PROVIDE them. It tells those administering GOVERNMENT to LEAVE THEM ALONE. It should be called the BILL OF PROHIBITIONS. Maybe people would understand it easier.
Above article reads in part, "Contrary to common misperception, these amendments do not bestow privileges upon American citizens. Rather, they are primarily a set of prohibitions against the government infringing on pre-existing human rights all people have." I certainly do not disagree with what you say. But I'm not a lawyer and when I'm addressing the average uninformed person , and new (to me) forums, as well as Bill-of-Rghts discussions in semi-unrelated forums and personnel discussions, I USUALLY have to avoid semantics and keep things simple and to the point...KISS,. And I certainly made that distinction between "privileges" VS "rights" in my original post. Thanks 4 your replies.
It is so common for people to say "2nd amendment rights" as if the 2nd amendment grants them the right to keep and bear arms. So maybe you need to consider the actual understanding of rights and realize that semantics is one of the problems we have. Like calling a piece of paper a dollar. Or an engine a motor. The original meanings are the most important. My RIGHTS don't come from any piece of paper. The are endowed to me by my "creator". Understand that THE founding document of the US is the Declaration of Independence. Hope that helps. I have to understand where you are coming from. The posted article wasn't mentioned in your comment. And the use of "its a no brainer" obviously isn't true. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much CONfusion out there on the 2nd amendment as well as a number of the rest.
I think it should be added that the word "arms' has also been misconstrued. There is zero mention of firearms in 2A, and while those are definitely "arms', they are not the only thing to fall in that category. Private citizens used to own cannons, and I see no stipulation barring ownership of a modern version such as RPGs or 50 cal belt fed machine guns. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear and if I want an F-16 fully armed, the only thing that should stop me is the cost.
We lost quite a few rights with the Miller Supreme Court decision. The justices had no choice but to rule for the government and uphold the National Firearms Act of 1934 because Miller had died and his lawyers didn't present evidence. It would be interesting to retry it before today's Court. I would bet the result would be different.
I just put one out about the NFA you might find interesting: 1934 - National Firearms Act (NFA) Doesn't this act OBVIOUSLY violate SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?
I dont recall the case name at the moment but its my understanding there was a ruling perhaps late 1800s/early 1900s that concluded 2A entails all common use military arms. So, yes, without the blatantly unconstitutional NFA, things would be very different
How about the blatantly unconstitutional Federal Reserve? The blatant disregard of the monetary clauses? How about the Dick Act? The National Defense Act of 1916? The GCA of 1968? The Hughes Amendment of 1986? The infringement on the 8th amendment where you get 10 years for not paying a $200 "tax"? Or the excessive fines of the 8th amendment where you get a $250,000 fine for not paying a $200 "tax"? , The violation of speedy public trial the January 6th protesters are dealing with? The violations of the 4th amendment? Due process in the case of "red flag laws" or "forfeiture laws"? Hell, the, the, the...the list is endless.
Hmmmm. You may be right. And I may be having a slight memory lapse. Been quite a few years since I first became aware of the ruling but the mention of SB shotguns is now ringing a bell. That said, I still say that 2A says what it means and means what it says and no court ruling legitimately changes that. 'Legitimately' being the operative word. But like all things in the US, easier to pass phony laws than adhere to constitutional processes
“A regrettably large share of our legal experiences operate not in the shadow of the Constitution and its constraints, but rather in the shadow of explicitly unconstitutional rules, actions, and orders. In the time it takes for improper Executive Orders to be reined in, for illicit administrative decisions to be corrected, and for misinterpretations of constitutional power to be overturned, so much of society’s activity is framed by what we might call the not-Constitution — all those acts of government that are deemed illegal only after they have caused enduring harm. A most troubling aspect of government power is its insistence on pushing past constitutional constraints and operating in a blurry legal wilderness of its own creation while forcing Americans to prove that those power grabs lack legitimacy.” ~ J.B. Shurk
So then the Constitution requires amendments, not laws that make people feel safe. Freedom is scary as hell to most, hence everyone on both sides of the aisle, begging for stripped freedoms. Every law passed is a freedom lost. And If Soros wants a nuke, he'll have one. Laws do not apply to the parasite class
Apparently you're one of those gun owners that has a limited vocabulary and simply doesn't understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I'm glad you're not in charge. Geezzzz....talk about slave talk.
There is a specific process laid out in the Constitution for that and that process is an amendment. Any law in violation of the Constitution is invalid. Shall not be infringed is very clear in its meaning. There is no stipulation for certain barrel lengths, of mag capacity or barred individuals. The right to self defense in inviolable and any law that restricts a person from such is pure evil.
Their predecessors were control freaks who ignored SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It really isn't rocket science. If I possess or do something and there is no VICTIM, there should be no CRIME. PERIOD. If I can afford an Apache helicopter to protect my town, I should be able to own one as long as I get the proper training to FLY IT. The license required to FLY IT isn't the same as OWNING IT. I have the RIGHT to the Apache. I do not have the right to fly it without proper instruction and passing a test to be sure. The weapon itself is covered under SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
You have correctly defined the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution. Too many people think the US constitution applies to the States. It does not. It is incumbent on ever American to secure their rights in their individual State constitution.
VA has a right to keep and bear arms, ignored by their politicians.
CA has zero rights to a firearm
AK has a privilege that can be taken away at any time
People need to understand that "States" are all fictions and that they can't do anything. It is the people running those "States" that are the issue. To say that California has zero rights to a firearm is mistaken. EVERYONE has the right to a firearm except those in a cage. The morons administering government in California are INFRINGING on the right. And the US Constitution DOES apply to the states if your read the "supremacy clause" and understand what it means by IN PURSUANCE THERE OF. No administer of a "state" can say, you have the right to own slaves. And yet THEY enslave us with their taxes that are endless. I think you might find this interesting. There is a REASON "They" Don't Listen to Us Anymore https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/there-is-a-reason-they-dont-listen
Thank you, Arthur. For others here, note that it was only in the 1920s -- with the Supreme Court's introduction of the "incorporation doctrine" -- that the court began interpreting the 14th Amendment so as to enforce Bill of Rights restrictions on state governments.
I wasn't challenging the "incorporation doctrine" interpretation of the 14th, just clarifying when it first appeared and started affecting rulings. I've only just recently started learning about incorporation, and haven't made up my mind about its validity.
14th Amendment aside, it's clear to me the founders did NOT intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments, only to the federal government they were creating. (See the linked article in my previous comment, which makes a compelling case why that's true. The same article doesn't fully sway me against incorporation.)
I read that article and it is a reasonable position. Having read a lot of the federalist papers, I don't see how the people drafting the constitution and BoR would just assume that the state governments wouldn't be as tyrannical as a fed gov could be. Its the same thing, just on a smaller scale. It would be a huge oversight from some pretty smart guys if this was indeed the case. Since the BoR applies to all citizens(the citizens of the several states as it says), then it must apply to the states themselves or else the position of citizenship has no meaning, right?
I'm sure they were concerned with guarding liberty from state government overreach too, but, as Robert alludes to, that was a responsibility for each state's citizenry, and something to be accomplished via state constitutions. With the US Constitution, the focus was solely on setting up and limiting the federal government they were creating.
I'll probably write about this at some point, but note that each of the states was considered on par politically with other states like France or Spain. They intended to keep that level of sovereignty, but were creating a federal government that would be a sort of servant to all of the states in handling certain matters explicitly designated in the Constitution. The Constitution was a set of instructions for, and limitations on, that new entity. It would thus not have been a vehicle for imposing rules on the separate states.
If you read the state constitutions from that period, you'll find that most include their own bill of rights and other statements limiting state powers. Also, the authors of the Constitution as well as the Anti-Federalists who opposed it were influential leaders in their states. They would likely have opposed any encroachment on liberty.
Had the Constitution been intended to intrude into the states as the Incorporation Doctrine intends, it would have never been ratified.
I disagree...I'm convinced by the study that I've done that the "supremacy clause" makes it pretty clear that the states have to fall within the confines of the US Constitution. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary … It makes no sense that the States could make laws that contradict this document. Their laws HAVE TO BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THERE OF. https://www.ammoland.com/2022/04/in-pursuance-there-of-or-not/
LOL! One "constitutional" attorney that was a speaker at a "God and Government" conference years ago at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church was given a pocket constitution by myself. After listening to him for a while and we went on break, I asked him why the 3rd amendment was in the "bill of rights". He had to actually look at the pocket constitution to find out what the 3rd amendment said! To which I responded..."the problem is that we have made the laws so complicated that we need "lawyers" to be able to defend ourselves and "pastors" to interpret the bible for us." Common law is simple. Is there a victim? YES? Then there is a crime. Statutory law is in total conflict with common law. Why is having a rifle with a barrel length under 16" considered a "felony" if you haven't paid $200 for a "tax stamp" and registered it? WHERE IS THE VICTIM? Besides yourself as you languish in a jail for 10 years. The FINE is a violation of the 8th amendment and the 10 years is also a violation of the 8th amendment. And the rule itself is a violation of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
So would that not be the same reasoning to apply the 2nd to all the states? I have to imagine the intent of the amendment would be to force the states into complying with the new slavery laws, and if so then it extends naturally to the rest of the BoR. To me, it would seem foolish that the founders would not extend the BoR to all the states initially as well, knowing why they were writing them in the first place.
This is absolutely shit writing. No minds will be changed with verbose, overwritten, self obsessed garbage like this. The writer loves his mouthful of prose more than the topic. Nothing more despicable and fully boomer than this: take a valid argument and destroy it with ego and pathetic show off bullshit. No wonder we’re fucked.
Fair. My comment was not contributive. Ftr: I agree with your position, but my dander goes up when important national values are explained in the 'egghead think tank wonk' way, because it renders the argument moot to the overburdened and deeply distracted working public. In other words: don't make the everyman argument with Oxford prose. Otherwise, whats the point, other than flexing in the mirror?
Thanks. You're correct that neither this nor any of my articles are written at the 8th-grade level recommended for mass communication, but that doesn't make them some kind of ego trip.
I unapologetically cater to a much smaller subset of people who appreciate this level of writing. That's part of what Substack is all about -- readers connecting directly to writers they like.
Maybe, as you say, this article won't win over a random member of the deeply distracted working public, but perhaps its treatment of the topic will help equip others (maybe you?) to convince them in the language they'd prefer.
Maybe so. I think the public is worthy of something better than 8th grade diction, and that we should respect them as such, unless you have contempt for them. The country needs people who understand the issues to help them get it. Now more than ever. As they say, “echo chambers”, yadda yadda..
Regarding Tench Coxe, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, the govt was unable to supply militias with all the firearms they needed. Thus, they expected that each militiaman would supply his own personal rifle or musket and ammunition, for militia service. Furthermore, the Founders deliberations for the Constitution were concerned with national defense and maintaining internal social order, not with usage of firearms for personal reasons. Thus, Coxe's statement provides no support for your contention.
If the there is a fundamental right to own firearms for self defense in the home, based on English Common Law, then I think the 9th Amendment covers that.
Hello and thank-you for the analysis. In the book "On Virginia" by Thos. Jefferson he states that "all able-bodied men between 18 and 54 are AUTOMATICALLY ENROLLED IN THE MILITIA"
Now for those under 18 and 55 and older...well...
Stop using the word “Government” as if we are talking about some kind of omnipotent megalith. Government is nothing but an abstraction of the mind, a legal fiction. We are talking about Government Actors. Government Actors are “people” that occupy positions of public trust who are charged with the preservation of public justice. Government Actors are servants, not masters. They are fiduciaries whose powers are delegated and limited. Government doesn’t grant me jack shit.
Note that Mr. Brian wrote this incomplete explanation on the 1st of April.
That was excellent. A complete and simply understood explanation.
Great to hear that. Thanks, David.
The reality may be even starker. What if our constitution isn't really a controlling document for our government? The pope ceded all the lands back to the crown after the revolution. In 1871 the USA became a corporation (when the government went bankrupt). The real controlling documents for the USA company are thought to be secretly held by the Bank of England, but no one knows. What we know is the USA company has paid lip service to the constitution while ignoring it in practice. Policy is what rules corporations. It was corporate policy in 1871 to make changes to the title and contents of the constitution unlawfully. Specifically, the title of the constitution said FOR the USA and now it's OF the USA. Changing the title like this is very important in contract law. It changes the constitution from a controlling document into a relic. In contract law, prepositions matter. So the policy of the USA corporation is to ignore the constitution and to do whatever would benefit the owners of the corporation, of course. That's how corporations work. They don't have laws or borders, they have policies. That's why the USA company ignores its laws and borders. That's why a corporation can never be a representative republic, and is why our government is so cynical and pernicious with regards to the rights of the populace. It doesn't believe we have any rights at all. They treat us as subjects of the crown of England which the Pope has owned for several hundred years. The movie Elizabeth is the story of how the pope came to dominate the crown and the entire west became a vassal state for the pope and his agents (frogs in Rev. 20) https://palamambron.substack.com/p/a-fruitful-meditation-of-rev-20-the
I figure I have the choice of defending myself and my property and family against all invaders. Otherwise why live? I don't need to fight over a constitution that the perps will just trounce as they see fit.
You have the rights you’re willing to exercise.
In today's vernacular, maybe it could be rewritten. The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED so that they can if so desired establish well regulated militias for the security of a free state of existence.
Well done. If more folks would realize this. I addressed it sometime back and just re-released my August one with some updates due to the recent call for more restrictions that violate SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. This one was at Lew Rockwell last year Those Forgotten and Ignored 13 Words: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/08/mark-reynolds/those-forgotten-and-ignored-13-words/ and this is my WHY THE MILTIA? post. I think you and your readers will find that they add to the debate. https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/why-the-militia I am surprised so many people are hung up on a standing army when the founding fathers did NOT have that intention in mind in the least bit. And yet there was one almost right away.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States...
Further, the law also includes female citizens but only if they are members of the National Guard.
The law specifies that the Militia consists of two parts: an "organized militia" which is the National Guard; and an "unorganized militia" which is everybody else.
It also DOES this which makes it part of the standing army which destroys the belief it is the militia. It was the National Defense Act of 1916 that fully modernized the National Guard, provided Federal funding for training, drills, annual training, and equipping. It did, however, stipulate that in return, the War Department and the Army gained far more control over the Militia; for example, the Army was now able to dictate what types of units would be raised in each State. The Act also removed the issue of Militia serving outside the United States by stating that when called into Federal service, the National Guard would be considered Federal troops. So can we quit calling the National Guard the militia?
This is a very well written article and touches on a concept entirely removed from contemporary American culture, and that is the constitution not granting rights to the people, but merely recognizing those rights and restraining the federal government, and after the passage of the 14th amendment, restraining the federal and state governments. I think the author missed one point. Article I section 10 specifically outlaws the states from keeping standing armies. "No state shall, without the consent of congress,....keep troops or ships of war in times of peace". I suppose one might argue that congress consented as it is the national guard, but it does seem to form the standing army the founders feared.
Van, thanks for pointing that out...I hadn't taken note of that before. As you say, I think the "without Consent of Congress" qualifier has been met via various federal acts regarding the National Guard (which ultimately made the Guard part of the federal US Army), but that language does give extra insight into the mindset of the framers.
For others' benefit, here's the full Article I Section 10: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
The problem now is American struggles under jewish tyranny...
In 1967 with my lawn mower money I bought my first rifle a 22, my dad stayed in the car reading his newspaper. I show no ID and no background check was performed. In 1968 jewish groups funded and advocated for the Gun Control Act of 1968. jewish organizations were behind this act and all the other gun control acts that followed. Jews are the problem in America.
Psychopathic Control Freaks are the problem in America. Joe Biden isn't a Jew. I can make a list of these control freaks who aren't Jews. To place one group of people under a label, is error. Realize that there are CONTROL FREAKS in every race, religion, creed and sex. Stop thinking that one group is the problem. Problem: Psychopathic Control Freaks Rule Us
Think about it... https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/problem-psychopathic-control-freaks
Joe Biden is a jewish poppet... He has more that 11 jews in his cabinet not to count other government posts. What about the Jewish Immigration Act of 1965???
https://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/2005/Staff031305MaliciousDuo.htm
It's a NO-BRAINER, the Bill of Rights (with 2A) provides rights (not privileges) for the PEOPLE, while the main body of the Constitution provides guidelines for arming the military: https://amuedge.com/the-role-of-the-u-s-constitution-and-the-armed-forces/
"the Bill of Rights provides rights"??? No it doesn't PROVIDE them. It tells those administering GOVERNMENT to LEAVE THEM ALONE. It should be called the BILL OF PROHIBITIONS. Maybe people would understand it easier.
Above article reads in part, "Contrary to common misperception, these amendments do not bestow privileges upon American citizens. Rather, they are primarily a set of prohibitions against the government infringing on pre-existing human rights all people have." I certainly do not disagree with what you say. But I'm not a lawyer and when I'm addressing the average uninformed person , and new (to me) forums, as well as Bill-of-Rghts discussions in semi-unrelated forums and personnel discussions, I USUALLY have to avoid semantics and keep things simple and to the point...KISS,. And I certainly made that distinction between "privileges" VS "rights" in my original post. Thanks 4 your replies.
It is so common for people to say "2nd amendment rights" as if the 2nd amendment grants them the right to keep and bear arms. So maybe you need to consider the actual understanding of rights and realize that semantics is one of the problems we have. Like calling a piece of paper a dollar. Or an engine a motor. The original meanings are the most important. My RIGHTS don't come from any piece of paper. The are endowed to me by my "creator". Understand that THE founding document of the US is the Declaration of Independence. Hope that helps. I have to understand where you are coming from. The posted article wasn't mentioned in your comment. And the use of "its a no brainer" obviously isn't true. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much CONfusion out there on the 2nd amendment as well as a number of the rest.
I think it should be added that the word "arms' has also been misconstrued. There is zero mention of firearms in 2A, and while those are definitely "arms', they are not the only thing to fall in that category. Private citizens used to own cannons, and I see no stipulation barring ownership of a modern version such as RPGs or 50 cal belt fed machine guns. Shall not be infringed is pretty clear and if I want an F-16 fully armed, the only thing that should stop me is the cost.
We lost quite a few rights with the Miller Supreme Court decision. The justices had no choice but to rule for the government and uphold the National Firearms Act of 1934 because Miller had died and his lawyers didn't present evidence. It would be interesting to retry it before today's Court. I would bet the result would be different.
I just put one out about the NFA you might find interesting: 1934 - National Firearms Act (NFA) Doesn't this act OBVIOUSLY violate SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?
https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/1934-national-firearms-act-nfa You may see it "retried" before the current court and the result should be the same a Roe Vs Wade, in lieu of the recent "Bruen" decision.
Shall check it out
I dont recall the case name at the moment but its my understanding there was a ruling perhaps late 1800s/early 1900s that concluded 2A entails all common use military arms. So, yes, without the blatantly unconstitutional NFA, things would be very different
How about the blatantly unconstitutional Federal Reserve? The blatant disregard of the monetary clauses? How about the Dick Act? The National Defense Act of 1916? The GCA of 1968? The Hughes Amendment of 1986? The infringement on the 8th amendment where you get 10 years for not paying a $200 "tax"? Or the excessive fines of the 8th amendment where you get a $250,000 fine for not paying a $200 "tax"? , The violation of speedy public trial the January 6th protesters are dealing with? The violations of the 4th amendment? Due process in the case of "red flag laws" or "forfeiture laws"? Hell, the, the, the...the list is endless.
Miller is probably the one you're thinking of. Here's link to it.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/
Hmmmm. You may be right. And I may be having a slight memory lapse. Been quite a few years since I first became aware of the ruling but the mention of SB shotguns is now ringing a bell. That said, I still say that 2A says what it means and means what it says and no court ruling legitimately changes that. 'Legitimately' being the operative word. But like all things in the US, easier to pass phony laws than adhere to constitutional processes
“A regrettably large share of our legal experiences operate not in the shadow of the Constitution and its constraints, but rather in the shadow of explicitly unconstitutional rules, actions, and orders. In the time it takes for improper Executive Orders to be reined in, for illicit administrative decisions to be corrected, and for misinterpretations of constitutional power to be overturned, so much of society’s activity is framed by what we might call the not-Constitution — all those acts of government that are deemed illegal only after they have caused enduring harm. A most troubling aspect of government power is its insistence on pushing past constitutional constraints and operating in a blurry legal wilderness of its own creation while forcing Americans to prove that those power grabs lack legitimacy.” ~ J.B. Shurk
So then the Constitution requires amendments, not laws that make people feel safe. Freedom is scary as hell to most, hence everyone on both sides of the aisle, begging for stripped freedoms. Every law passed is a freedom lost. And If Soros wants a nuke, he'll have one. Laws do not apply to the parasite class
Apparently you're one of those gun owners that has a limited vocabulary and simply doesn't understand SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I'm glad you're not in charge. Geezzzz....talk about slave talk.
There is a specific process laid out in the Constitution for that and that process is an amendment. Any law in violation of the Constitution is invalid. Shall not be infringed is very clear in its meaning. There is no stipulation for certain barrel lengths, of mag capacity or barred individuals. The right to self defense in inviolable and any law that restricts a person from such is pure evil.
Their predecessors were control freaks who ignored SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. It really isn't rocket science. If I possess or do something and there is no VICTIM, there should be no CRIME. PERIOD. If I can afford an Apache helicopter to protect my town, I should be able to own one as long as I get the proper training to FLY IT. The license required to FLY IT isn't the same as OWNING IT. I have the RIGHT to the Apache. I do not have the right to fly it without proper instruction and passing a test to be sure. The weapon itself is covered under SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Well yea I cant disagree with that at all. But doesnt make it morally correct to limit anyone's ability to defend themselves
You have correctly defined the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution. Too many people think the US constitution applies to the States. It does not. It is incumbent on ever American to secure their rights in their individual State constitution.
VA has a right to keep and bear arms, ignored by their politicians.
CA has zero rights to a firearm
AK has a privilege that can be taken away at any time
People need to understand that "States" are all fictions and that they can't do anything. It is the people running those "States" that are the issue. To say that California has zero rights to a firearm is mistaken. EVERYONE has the right to a firearm except those in a cage. The morons administering government in California are INFRINGING on the right. And the US Constitution DOES apply to the states if your read the "supremacy clause" and understand what it means by IN PURSUANCE THERE OF. No administer of a "state" can say, you have the right to own slaves. And yet THEY enslave us with their taxes that are endless. I think you might find this interesting. There is a REASON "They" Don't Listen to Us Anymore https://courageouslion380.substack.com/p/there-is-a-reason-they-dont-listen
Thank you, Arthur. For others here, note that it was only in the 1920s -- with the Supreme Court's introduction of the "incorporation doctrine" -- that the court began interpreting the 14th Amendment so as to enforce Bill of Rights restrictions on state governments.
https://mises.org/wire/incorporation-doctrine-broke-constitutional-system
Then how do you explain the purpose of the 14th amendment?
I wasn't challenging the "incorporation doctrine" interpretation of the 14th, just clarifying when it first appeared and started affecting rulings. I've only just recently started learning about incorporation, and haven't made up my mind about its validity.
14th Amendment aside, it's clear to me the founders did NOT intend for the Bill of Rights to apply to state governments, only to the federal government they were creating. (See the linked article in my previous comment, which makes a compelling case why that's true. The same article doesn't fully sway me against incorporation.)
I read that article and it is a reasonable position. Having read a lot of the federalist papers, I don't see how the people drafting the constitution and BoR would just assume that the state governments wouldn't be as tyrannical as a fed gov could be. Its the same thing, just on a smaller scale. It would be a huge oversight from some pretty smart guys if this was indeed the case. Since the BoR applies to all citizens(the citizens of the several states as it says), then it must apply to the states themselves or else the position of citizenship has no meaning, right?
I'm sure they were concerned with guarding liberty from state government overreach too, but, as Robert alludes to, that was a responsibility for each state's citizenry, and something to be accomplished via state constitutions. With the US Constitution, the focus was solely on setting up and limiting the federal government they were creating.
I'll probably write about this at some point, but note that each of the states was considered on par politically with other states like France or Spain. They intended to keep that level of sovereignty, but were creating a federal government that would be a sort of servant to all of the states in handling certain matters explicitly designated in the Constitution. The Constitution was a set of instructions for, and limitations on, that new entity. It would thus not have been a vehicle for imposing rules on the separate states.
If you read the state constitutions from that period, you'll find that most include their own bill of rights and other statements limiting state powers. Also, the authors of the Constitution as well as the Anti-Federalists who opposed it were influential leaders in their states. They would likely have opposed any encroachment on liberty.
Had the Constitution been intended to intrude into the states as the Incorporation Doctrine intends, it would have never been ratified.
It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified.
https://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-the-14th-amend-was-not-ratified/
I disagree...I'm convinced by the study that I've done that the "supremacy clause" makes it pretty clear that the states have to fall within the confines of the US Constitution. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary … It makes no sense that the States could make laws that contradict this document. Their laws HAVE TO BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THERE OF. https://www.ammoland.com/2022/04/in-pursuance-there-of-or-not/
LOL! One "constitutional" attorney that was a speaker at a "God and Government" conference years ago at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church was given a pocket constitution by myself. After listening to him for a while and we went on break, I asked him why the 3rd amendment was in the "bill of rights". He had to actually look at the pocket constitution to find out what the 3rd amendment said! To which I responded..."the problem is that we have made the laws so complicated that we need "lawyers" to be able to defend ourselves and "pastors" to interpret the bible for us." Common law is simple. Is there a victim? YES? Then there is a crime. Statutory law is in total conflict with common law. Why is having a rifle with a barrel length under 16" considered a "felony" if you haven't paid $200 for a "tax stamp" and registered it? WHERE IS THE VICTIM? Besides yourself as you languish in a jail for 10 years. The FINE is a violation of the 8th amendment and the 10 years is also a violation of the 8th amendment. And the rule itself is a violation of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
So would that not be the same reasoning to apply the 2nd to all the states? I have to imagine the intent of the amendment would be to force the states into complying with the new slavery laws, and if so then it extends naturally to the rest of the BoR. To me, it would seem foolish that the founders would not extend the BoR to all the states initially as well, knowing why they were writing them in the first place.
ANY restriction on the right to keep and bear arms violates SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. No state shall make any law that is NOT in pursuance of the Constitution. Read this...https://www.ammoland.com/2022/04/in-pursuance-there-of-or-not/
This is absolutely shit writing. No minds will be changed with verbose, overwritten, self obsessed garbage like this. The writer loves his mouthful of prose more than the topic. Nothing more despicable and fully boomer than this: take a valid argument and destroy it with ego and pathetic show off bullshit. No wonder we’re fucked.
"brandon", AGREED
LOL! Is that you Joe?
Thank you for coming by and brightening up the room.
Note to self: Next time, stop polishing your prose well before reaching the point of infatuation.
Fair. My comment was not contributive. Ftr: I agree with your position, but my dander goes up when important national values are explained in the 'egghead think tank wonk' way, because it renders the argument moot to the overburdened and deeply distracted working public. In other words: don't make the everyman argument with Oxford prose. Otherwise, whats the point, other than flexing in the mirror?
Thanks. You're correct that neither this nor any of my articles are written at the 8th-grade level recommended for mass communication, but that doesn't make them some kind of ego trip.
I unapologetically cater to a much smaller subset of people who appreciate this level of writing. That's part of what Substack is all about -- readers connecting directly to writers they like.
Maybe, as you say, this article won't win over a random member of the deeply distracted working public, but perhaps its treatment of the topic will help equip others (maybe you?) to convince them in the language they'd prefer.
Maybe so. I think the public is worthy of something better than 8th grade diction, and that we should respect them as such, unless you have contempt for them. The country needs people who understand the issues to help them get it. Now more than ever. As they say, “echo chambers”, yadda yadda..