Laszlo Cravensworth
Well-known member
I'd wager that if you surveyed non gun owners the percentage that claim the 2A only applies to militias would be much greater than 1%.
No Second Amendment in the UK
- Thread starter devon deer
- Start date
I'd wager that if you surveyed non gun owners the percentage that claim the 2A only applies to militias would be much greater than 1%.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 3,028
I would expect that if there is a portion of the public that works and wants Roe v Wade reversed,,, there is and will be a portion working and wanting Heller reversed.
In Heller, Scalia allowed that certain firearms (sawed off shotguns) could be constitutionally restricted from legal ownership. Whose to say what a future court might decide about certain firearms.
In Heller, Scalia allowed that certain firearms (sawed off shotguns) could be constitutionally restricted from legal ownership. Whose to say what a future court might decide about certain firearms.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Quite the opposite. 70% of people thought it meant exactly what it had meant for 200 years - a right of militia or at best the right to bear arms that would be useful to participate in the militia (Miller 1939). And Heller surprised many with a reversal of thinking.
You and I both like the 2A, you and I both like Heller, you and I both prefer readings of the 2A that allow for a personal right. But you repeatedly mischaracterize the law, history and general understandings of the law. And that not at all helpful or productive. Even the Founders had differing opinions on personal firearms ownership and the purpose behind the 2A.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
This is not a new conversation, Carry On:
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894)
In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.
We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts. And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court.
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897)
[The Court concluded that the Thirteenth Amendment didn't bar enforcement of a mariner's contract, on the grounds that the various constitutional rights cannot be read literally and absolutely:]
. . . The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.
Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion; . . . .
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
(the most extensive modern discussion of the Amendment)
An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton "did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length [contrary to the National Firearms Act] . . . ."
A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The District Court held that section eleven of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.
. . .
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. [Citing further sources, e.g., the Virginia Act of October 1785 providing for a Militia of "all free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions.]
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980)
[Lewis was convicted of being a felon in possession, and challenged it on various statutory grounds, on the ground that his prior felony conviction was uncounseled and therefore shouldn't be considered, and on constitutional grounds. The Court held:]
The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment if there is "some `rational basis' for the statutory distinctions made . . . or . . . they `have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made." [fn1]
Section 1202(a)(1) clearly meets that test. . . .
[fn1] These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that § 1202(a)(1), § 922(g), and § 922(a)(6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894)
In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the state of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest, without warrant, of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the second and fourth amendments to the constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures.
We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts. And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court.
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897)
[The Court concluded that the Thirteenth Amendment didn't bar enforcement of a mariner's contract, on the grounds that the various constitutional rights cannot be read literally and absolutely:]
. . . The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions, arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed.
Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (article 5) does not prevent a second trial, if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree, or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion; . . . .
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
(the most extensive modern discussion of the Amendment)
An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton "did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length [contrary to the National Firearms Act] . . . ."
A duly interposed demurrer alleged: The National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The District Court held that section eleven of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.
. . .
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power -- "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. [Citing further sources, e.g., the Virginia Act of October 1785 providing for a Militia of "all free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions.]
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980)
[Lewis was convicted of being a felon in possession, and challenged it on various statutory grounds, on the ground that his prior felony conviction was uncounseled and therefore shouldn't be considered, and on constitutional grounds. The Court held:]
The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment if there is "some `rational basis' for the statutory distinctions made . . . or . . . they `have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made." [fn1]
Section 1202(a)(1) clearly meets that test. . . .
[fn1] These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010, 93 S.Ct. 454, 34 L.Ed.2d 303 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that § 1202(a)(1), § 922(g), and § 922(a)(6) do not violate the Second Amendment).
Agree to disagree. I'm old enough to remember when 2A meant I had a personal right to own a firearm. It was before 2008. Strange that any gun control laws were introduced before 2008, since we didn't really have the right to own them.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
You may have grown up with that understanding, but that does not make that understanding legally accurate or logical to several hundred million fellow citizens. Lots of gun control laws on and off in our history, included at the time of the constitution writing and very strong prohibitions in Texas in 1890s. Read some of these cases above and a range of books on the founder's intent for the Bill of Rights - you would be surprised at how little clarity there is.
Shangobango
Well-known member
I'll answer this one. I personally believe such a law would be unconstitutional. Really doesn't matter what I think though since I don't get to decide such things for all of America.
If I were king for a day it would be a busy day and toward the end it would be free single malt for all....
The past is never as serene as our memories : Although I have some wonderful memories of those times, I also have not forgotten The Great Depression, World War II, The Korea war, The Viet Nam war, as our family had people, not , come back from those wars and conflicts . I remember both the good and the bad and keep hoping that "we" as a society can do better than we did in the past and not just accept what we are being spoon fed today because it has happened before and we got through it.
I am not as educated or as well informed as some of you, so I will just just say "I have not forgotten and hope others also have not and will not"
And with that being said I will also bow out, with best regards for each and every one of you gentlemen
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
A little light reading for those convinced that Americans enjoyed 200+ years of unfettered gun rights prior to Bloomberg . . .
Firearms and Weapons Legislation up to the Early 20th Century
This document is a compilation of state firearms and weapons legislation from the colonial era until the start of the twentieth century. This research provides
poseidon01.ssrn.com
SD_Prairie_Goat
Well-known member
A little light reading for those convinced that Americans enjoyed 200+ years of unfettered gun rights prior to Bloomberg . . .
Firearms and Weapons Legislation up to the Early 20th Century
This document is a compilation of state firearms and weapons legislation from the colonial era until the start of the twentieth century. This research providesposeidon01.ssrn.com
Holy shit, 113 pages, I'll take your word for it!
devon deer
Well-known member
Might be an idea to end on your postHoly shit, 113 pages, I'll take your word for it!
Thanks chaps, it has been quite an education for me living where I do.
Cheers
Richard
Last edited:
Hammsolo
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 16, 2020
- Messages
- 2,916
Curious, how are the east coast laws different? I know NYC has handgun laws for example. Washington State is low key. Basically, just run a background check. I, and almost every hunter I talk to personally, think we need SLIGHTLY tighter gun laws. Spend a day in downtown Spokane and watch the problems with our homeless population. So much addiction and mental illness. What are your thoughts?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
My specific situation. In Mass to possess a firearm (any + ammo bullets, powder) you need a License to Carry (LTC). Getting an LTC requires you take a Mass firearms course (out of state CC courses and hunter-ed do not count), you send in an application, then have an in person interview with the police, pay $100, have a background check and are finger printed. All firearms you purchase have to be registered with the state within a specific time frame.
Caveats there is a Non-Res LTC and a Res LTC; NR allows possession but not purchase of guns and ammo (so you'd have to drive to NH to buy shotgun shells), and your guns don't need to be registered (bit murky on that point). NR LTC lasts 1 year, Res LTC lasts 5 years and allows purchase and possession, but requires registration.
A NR hunting license allows firearm possession in the state while hunting, so as was explained to me I could leave my guns in VT with a friend and drive up there to hunt, or could go get them hunt MA Sat (no sunday hunting) then drive back up to VT give them to my buddy before returning home (90 min drive each way). Would have to do this every weekend. I could not keep them in my home the entire season even if I went out say thurs-sat every week, and then left them in MA once my tags were filled. (I asked the Mass state police, they were firm)
I took my Mass course in May and submitted my app, called last week for a status update and my application has not been opened yet. Likely my interview will be in several months, over under from the person on the phone was Feb-ish.
One can possess a muzzleloader without an LTC but not the powder or bullets.
LTC issuance is a "may" not "shall", and the licensing authority can add limitations if they wish, so "possession only for hunting", "possession only for sporting", etc.
"The licensing authority may deny the application or renewal of a license to carry, or suspend or revoke a license issued under this section if, in a reasonable exercise of discretion, the licensing authority determines that the applicant or licensee is unsuitable to be issued or to continue to hold a license to carry." 1
-Guns must be stored in a locked container, power/ammo/primers ect as well
-No AR's or high capacity (wiggle room, but standard no pistol grips, barrel shrouds, etc.)
-All handguns must be approved by the state (Kimber's for instance are not approved)
-Pretty strict rules on transportation
-I believe you still have to have another background check to purchase after getting an LTC, though I'm not 100%
I looked into everything before I came out east, and realized it was a cluster so left everything in my home in CO. Was hoping to bring out my muzzy and a shotgun in Nov for gun season, that seems unlikely now.
Some pretty awesome Ht'ers have offered to take me out and let me borrow there's, to which I'm extremely grateful.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts...
Mass hasn't figured out a good way for people who own guns to move their, ie grace period, storage with local police, I dk something. Personally I would have no probably leaving my guns at the local police station and grabbing them Thursday afternoon and dropping them off Monday morning.
The process doesn't help me anywhere, the Mass LTC doesn't have reciprocity with NYC or Washington DC, CA, or Chicago. So if I moved to any of those places in a couple of years I'd have to start from scratch.
If I was running for office, my 2A platform would consist of posts #51 (with vikings amendments) and #60
Wildabeest
Well-known member
When I lived in NC, you had to get a permit from the local sheriff’s office in order to buy a handgun. Generally took about a week to get it. That doesn’t seem to be the case out here in the Rocky Mountain states. Long guns did not have that requirement.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
In MN we need local police/sheriff to issue handgun purchase permit which can also be used for "AR scary black rifle purchase". A conceal carry permit can be used instead for either. Traditional rifles and shotguns don't need anything from state.
Laszlo Cravensworth
Well-known member
California is nowhere near as burdensome. I havent kept up in the last year, but if I recall correctly the handgun safety certificate can be done at point of sale.
CCW is a different story. That's at the discretion of the sheriff and a much more lengthy process.
did you also get to legally skip class to go to a Nixon event and if not did the teacher then allow someone to bring the ideas of the other side to the class room. ?
Today's educators are so liberal they are almost socialist. Not all of them, but from my experience, many of todays "educators" ( especially in Universities ) lean pretty far to the left and do not hesitate in bringing their political and social preferences to the classroom while at the same time not allowing the "other side" to be discussed. Word gets out and one can usually navigate around them, but not always.. The one that is a bit upsetting to a lot of females at the moment is not even political, or maybe it is come to think of it.
How can a boy or man be allowed to participate in girls or women sports, just because he doesn't recognize himself as a man, but as a woman. It has even been discussed that if he believes he is female and is uncomfortable in the mens locker room he should be allowed to change in the girls locker room. How is this political ? It is !
sorry, got a bit carried away here, but the "legally" skipping class to go to a political event does not seem right to me UNLESS the same young minds had the opportunity to hear the other side of the issue. Also, this is not about 2A, but I am responding to a post made on this thread.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 3,028
WOW,,,,,,,,,,, all I related is a 17 year old got a chance to skip some classes without penalty. Nixon did not stop to campaign in our town.
Pick one tangent and run with it. Going off on so many dilutes the argument.
