2nd Amendment: Has it changed since 1789?

You've already made these objections in other threads and have been spanked. If you will read posts 716, 717, and 721 here, your argument is equally destroyed. It might be your personal opinion, but it is not the law in the United States. Shall we import the other responses from the last time you tried this?

 

The US Constitution and all State Constitutions are statutory laws created by government and the natural rights of the person are independent from the existence of government and not dependent upon government. Governments can protect or violate the natural rights of the person but that doesn't create or disparage any natural right.

That's why they're called "Natural Rights" because they're completely independent of any government definition under the law. Rights established by government under the law are referred to as Civil Rights and not Natural Rights. For example the Right to Vote is a Civil Right because it's established under the US Constitution and is a statutory right of the person.

The "Right to keep and bare arms" is a statutory (civil) right established by the US Constitution and also embraced by all State Constitutions that must comply with the US Constitution but because it's a statutory right it can also be regulated under statutory law.
.

 

You know this statement is not true.

Like all Constitutional rights.

My right to keep and bear arms is not subject to what you believe to be reasonable or sane.

It is impossible to soundly demonstrate any degree of "necessity" for such a thing.

 

Not true, counselor. You should do a little study on case law before presenting your opinions as law. Since you apparently cannot read this thread, let us repeat this for about the 30th time in this thread alone.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The Right to keep and bear Arms is not a Right granted by the Constitution, yet it exists. The United States Supreme Court said so. The Right to keep and bear Arms exists without the Constitution since the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Now, what part of that do you not understand?

 

The Supreme Court did not state that the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes was a "natural right" of the person. Only that it wasn't established by statutory law. Instead the right the Supreme Court was referring to was established under the "common law" (which is non-statutory) related to the "natural right of self-defense against acts of aggression" of the person.

Once again if there was a non-lethal weapon that could effectively replace a lethal firearm as the ultimate means of self-defense then the foundation for the "common law" right to own a firearm evaporates.

 

The United States Supreme Court said that the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution. The government does not grant it. Really dude??? We've covered this over and over in this thread. It would have made better sense if you had read it. But, okay....



"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Read what yet ANOTHER state court ruled:

“....the right to keep arms necessarily involves the right to purchase them, to keep them in a state of efficiency for use, and to purchase and provide ammunition suitable for such arms, and to keep them in repair.” Andres v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk) 165, 178 (1871)

More proof of the Right:

"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (187

The FIRST time a gun law was declared unconstitutional on Second Amendment grounds, the court ruled:

"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..." Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

These are all standing precedents and have been used in legal briefs even before the United States Supreme Court, including in the Heller decision.

 

in the Patriot movie with Mel Gibson the militia did not have heavy artillery, but they were able to defend quite well against the standing british army with small arms.

the equivalent of that today would be assault weapons for guerrillas, since that is what is a militia today.

 

"a natural right of self-defense against acts of aggression" was intended for the American individual to defend against the british red coats at the time it was written.

sir cornwallis of england lost because a group of individual Americans banded together in a militia to defend against the tyranny of his government.

today a militia is known as guerillas.

 

False.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

That is, the 2nd also protects the right to a firearm for purposes -other- than self-defense in the home; and so, even if you are correct regarding a non-lethal weapon, the right to a firearm would still be protected for these other purposes.

 

Very well argued with the understanding that the general word "arms" is not the same as "firearms" which is a subcategory of arms. Additionally we know that over time prior decisions by the Supreme Court evolve in many cases as time can change the factors under consideration. For example the decision in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) related to firearm technology of the times and could not foresee the future evolution of firearms such as the machine gun that became a weapon of mass destruction and death. .

We should also note the following from the Heller v DC decision:

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

In short the right to keep and bear arms remains subject to statutory regulation and restriction under the Constitution.

Realize of course that I'm a 2nd Amendment supporter and don't advocate any infringement that isn't supported by a compelling argument. At the same time here are numerous actions, such as background checks and waiting periods, that impose no infringement at all. I've purchased several firearms where a background check and waiting period was involved and never once did it prevent the purchase of the firearm. I have no problem with prohibiting those that represent a creditable threat of violence, such as ex-felons and mentally ill people, from possessing firearms because there are compelling arguments to support the infringement. I have no problem with the restrictions on owning fully automatic firearms that are not for the defense of the person but instead are designed for mass killing.

 

Mel Gibson movies notwithstanding...the militia absolutely had artillery

 

Background checks DO constitute an infringement. Waiting periods are an infringement by any standard. They do so because they nullify the concept of a presumption innocence; they do so because they violate a Right to privacy. Background checks presume that the government can create classes of citizens who have or do not have unalienable Rights.

That pesky word unalienable just keeps popping up; however, the protection of same is what the Bill of Rights is all about.

Your objection to what I've presented has been dealt with in the past - as have all these issues (you should read the thread.) But here is what I say to everybody:

The Second Amendment has been litigated all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. While the Justices had the power in a constitutional / de jure Republic to declare that our rights are not unlimited in the Heller decision, they lacked the authority to do so. That proposition flies in the face of over 200 years of established precedent. It is the very thing our forefathers warned against. For example:

"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." George Washington

It is not the job of the United States Supreme Court to legislate from the bench. And so, the citizenry get to call the government out on this one. We can appeal to the congresscritters, but at the same time, no constitutionalist will live by an illegal United States Supreme Court decision.

You are making a Pharisee argument. I recall earlier in my own life (watching westerns) where a guy would go to jail or prison and almost as soon as he was let out, the guy would then become the sheriff. This baseless argument of felons owning guns was not an issue even in the 1970s. It is of recent manufacture.

When a person pays for their crime, does the time, makes restitution to the victims and is set free, the government is telling me they are rehabilitated. If we cannot trust them, they should be kept in prison. When they are released, they should have the Right to defend themselves and their families the same as you. The family of a felon deserves to be able to defend their Life and Liberty same as you and that means a firearm in the house. If a felon's daughter is being raped or beaten, that felon should be able to use deadly force in order to protect her - and if a firearm is appropriate... well.

Mental health records are not accessible so background checks are not applicable on that count.

In the past I have offered a far better solution. It gets maybe three posts after I tell you how you keep the bodies of the wrong hands away from firearms, but it's a better solution than infringing on the unalienable Rights of the American people. What you guys on the left do is attempt to pee down my shirt and tell me it's raining.

Addendum: PRIOR to the Heller decision, the courts were unanimous in saying that the Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was not given by way of the government granting the Right; not dependent upon the Constitution; not a Right the state could control. The sentiment was echoed in the Cruikshank decision. If a Right is absolute; if it is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence; if it is beyond the control of the state, then it is an unalienable Right and that is sometimes referred to as a natural right. If that defies your personal interpretation, that is a personal problem.

 

A couple of points:

- Machine guns are not "weapons of mass destruction". The Iraq war was largely predicated and justified on intelligence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. By your definition, war is justified against every country on the planet, and many private US citizens, because they ALL have WMDs. The phrase "weapon of mass destruction" has a specific meaning that does not apply to any firearm.

- The words 'prevent' and 'infringe' mean very different things. That you were not 'prevented' from purchasing a firearm, after some waiting period and background check, is not evidence that your 2A right was not 'infringed'. You have merely chosen some degree of infringement that you are comfortable with. You can not presume to impose your comfort with infringement onto everyone else. The 2A says 'shall not be infringed'. Therefore, no degree of infringement is Constitutional, regardless of your personal comfort level with it, or any federal laws that are in effect.

 

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions. We have social justice due to our best form of Socialism in the Entire World.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't understand the concepts.

No "natural rights" are secured in our Second Amendment.

They are secured in State Constitutions.

 

So you're claiming that there can be NO 'infringement" of any sort. No regulation. No laws. Any weapon for any person.

Congratulations. You're more extreme than Scalia. Not even he was suggesting that

 

Natural rights may be recognized in state constitutions, but you know it's a damn lie that they are secured therein. I've given you how many cites from state courts to the contrary?

- - - Updated - - -

What part of "shall not be infringed" is that you have trouble understanding?

 

Wellness of regulation for the militia must come from our federal Congress. It is in Article 1, Section 8.

- - - Updated - - -

It is even more silly to believe natural rights are recognized and secured in our Second Amendment--it is Not a Constitution unto itself.

 

Background checks and waiting periods are a form of prior restraint, where the state restrains the exercise of the right until it determines the law is not being broken. As you know, prior restraint almost always violent the Constitution.

There is no compelling argument for waiting periods, especially if someone already has a gun; absent this compelling argument, the restriction violates the constitution.

False standard -- a restriction need not prevent a purchase for it to qualify as an unconstitutional infringement.

Not sure why you do not understand that these things are not infringements because the right to keep and bear arms is removed hru dur process.

- - - Updated - - -

You know this statement is false.

 

If you're asking if they are then no and that's not what you asked originally. You asked if tanks and such are ok and they are though through regulation. If you're asking if I think they should be then yes, they should.

 

Yes, it has changed sine 1789. First off, from 1789 - 1865 it states that did have slavery -- slaves were never thought of members of the state militia. True, I am not an African American: but lets say I was elected as President of the United States of America before the American Civil War. Since the president is the commander and chief, then, with an act of congress I could call all African Americans from all the slave states. And when I say all African Americans, I am talking about from birth to 120: and both men and women to be in the American Army. Then, order all the slaves to move into free territory: very much the common practice that Native Americans were moved into free territory during the pre-civil war era. True, I would do it more just to the slave population then what was done to the Native Americans. After they are there, dissolve the army and declare them free to return home if they want or be free people in a free territory.

Oh please do not tell me you do not support the 2nd Amendment now with this alternate history? Come on now, even if you are a Alt-Right supporter: you should be supporting this theory. Unless, you do not want to think of the blowback from slave states. If you were a governor of a slave state, say South Carolina: would your voters support slaves being drafter into the American Army and matched out of the state? But, if you were governor of South Carolina today: would you reject an African American from the legal purchase of $10,000 in firearms and ammo? Even that, that African American could if the government wanted, could draft that person into the military today.

Time to close, but think of firearms and slaves. You have a mind, food for thought.

 

that seems unconstitutional, when America was founded everyone was armed for any reason they so desired.

it may be the law of the land today, but the 2nd amendment has indeed changed.

 

America is not perfect it had good laws and bad laws at its founding, but we should keep the good laws that protect the spirit of liberty.

the second amendment was intended to protect freedom through self defense from a tyrannical government.

 

Self defense from a tyrannical government: that argument has really came to an end after the American Civil War -- and has been put to bed since August 1945 with the nuclear weapons used on Japan. This is a good argument, for the people that support building the wall on the Mexican - American boarder and support the second amendment. A president can build that wall in a single day. If we are willing to accept a president willing to use nuclear weapons on American territory. True, the level of nuclear radiation at the southern boarder would be so high -- it would scare anyone willing to travel over the land. But, would the actions of the president be a tyrannical government, or, feeding the red meet to his supporters?

Now, if someone wants to have their personal firearms in the theory to stop a tyrannical government: you are really supporting your outright military defeat. Now I did live in Ann Arbor Michigan for years, and, I was less then 10 miles from the leaders house of the Michigan Militia. An old 19th century farm house with around 50 cars on his property just rusting away. It is not what I call an ideal lifestyle, then again pretending you want to live a lifestyle of the 19th century when we are in the 21st century is counterproductive. True, I live in Tennessee now: and can find people that want their guns and hate property taxes so much: they drive a 2016 4X4 pickup truck that is valued over $50,000 but live in a mobile home that is worth less then $10,000. Or, one guy that lives in a 1968 RV and drives a new pickup truck.

Then again, if I had to run outside to the outhouse when it is below freezing just to se my ass on a below freezing toilet seat -- maybe I should accept property taxes. Now if I am freezing in a outhouse sitting on a freezing toilet seat. Sure, I can have thousands of dollars of firearms waiting to stop a tyrannical government. Then again, I am sure our current military can take care of a single person in a outhouse regardless of the outdoor temperature.

 

the second amendment is a symbolic gesture of freedom to the people today, no one really believes they will defeat a predator drone in their backyard.

 

Actually it came to an end with Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion when the government used the militia to put down those insurrections.