Another Gun Thread

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

Here’s what the state Constitutions of each of the thirteen colonies have to say about the right to bear arms. Since I’m on an internet forum and not doing a paper, I’m not going to hunt down the dates. Be advised, some have been amended well into the 20th century. In states with multiple Constitutions I am using the first one. After looking at all of these, decide for yourself what the motivation was of the RKBA in the federal Constitution.

New Hampshire-All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Massachusetts-The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

Virginia-That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Rhode Island-The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

North Carolina-A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

South Carolina-A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law.

Georgia-Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

Pennsylvania-The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

New York-None in the modern version. The 1777 version simply states that the militia should be armed at all times.

Vermont-That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

Maine-Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

Maryland-No specific mention in the modern version, simply “The General Assembly shall make, from time to time, such provisions for organizing, equipping and disciplining the Militia, as the exigency may require, and pass such Laws to promote Volunteer Militia organizations as may afford them effectual encouragement.”

Delaware-A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

mike

2

Many seem to borrow heavily Virginia’s which was written by Jefferson. The man was a great writer.

Interesting that some explicitly give the right to bear arms to the people, while others only to “well regulated militias,” which is a term that is very open to interpretation.

3

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
…
Pennsylvania-The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

…[/quote]

Our governor needs to be reminded of this.

4

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
…
Pennsylvania-The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

…

Our governor needs to be reminded of this.[/quote]

He certainly does. Fortunately the rural legislators still have common sense and there are more of them.

5

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
…
Pennsylvania-The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

…

Our governor needs to be reminded of this.[/quote]

I don’t know how he got elected. Probably too many idiots migrating from New York and New Jersey.

6

[quote]hedo wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
…
Pennsylvania-The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

…

Our governor needs to be reminded of this.

He certainly does. Fortunately the rural legislators still have common sense and there are more of them.

[/quote]

Apparently, Luzerne County Sheriff’s Dept. issues permits to non-residents on a walk-in basis.

http://dsf.pacounties.org/luzerne/cwp/view.asp?a=1208&q=463872&tx=1

7

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Here’s what the state Constitutions of each of the thirteen colonies have to say about the right to bear arms…

Virginia-That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Rhode Island-The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

…
mike[/quote]

Heroic effort there, mike!

I suppose Rhode Island’s version is so short because it is a small state without much extra room for grandiloquence.

But the contrast tells a story, no? If Virginia’s version was written by TJ (and not by Madison), it certainly supports the notion that the purpose of arms is the guarantee of defense afforded by the “body of the people”–i.e., the militia–and not a guarantee to the individual. This supports the gun control argument in the DC case (other thread). The Rhode Island version, of course, is the converse argument.

8

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

But the contrast tells a story, no? If Virginia’s version was written by TJ (and not by Madison), it certainly supports the notion that the purpose of arms is the guarantee of defense afforded by the “body of the people”–i.e., the militia–and not a guarantee to the individual. This supports the gun control argument in the DC case (other thread). The Rhode Island version, of course, is the converse argument.[/quote]

Jefferson, Madison, and Mason share credit for Virginia’s Constitution, and the style of that article strikes me as Jefferson’s. The vague wording of it doesn’t support gun control, nor does it give gun rights advocates very solid ground to stand on either. But even in Pennsylvania, where gun rights are spelled out in the strongest language possible, gun control advocates will try to restrict those rights anyway.

9

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Here’s what the state Constitutions of each of the thirteen colonies have to say about the right to bear arms…

Virginia-That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Rhode Island-The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

…
mike

Heroic effort there, mike!

I suppose Rhode Island’s version is so short because it is a small state without much extra room for grandiloquence.

But the contrast tells a story, no? If Virginia’s version was written by TJ (and not by Madison), it certainly supports the notion that the purpose of arms is the guarantee of defense afforded by the “body of the people”–i.e., the militia–and not a guarantee to the individual. This supports the gun control argument in the DC case (other thread). The Rhode Island version, of course, is the converse argument.[/quote]

But who is the militia? If the militia is you and I and we are expected to be capable of fighting a standing army how are we to train? There is also the fact that if by “well regulated” you mean under government control then you’ve destroyed the entire purpose of militia in the first place.

During the colonial era and the early republic some militias were mustered by the states. Daniel Morgan’s weren’t. Ethan Allen’s Green Mountain Boys weren’t. These were “well-regulated” militias just as the state and local militias were. With rebel governments across the colonies, what were the tory militias? Men at arms can become a well-regulated militia simply by the election of a few officers and emplacing a set of standards. Nowhere in the “well-regulated” statement does it say “regulated by government.”

With this being the case, governments still lack the right to pick and choose what weapons you can have. If I am the captain of the Idaho militia I would certainly want machine guns for supporting fire and short barreled shotties for CQB. I’d wish to outfit my men to meet and exceed my enemy.

mike

10

Just as food for thought when considering the 2d Amendment and state laws, recall that the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government - as in, whatever the extent of the individual right to gun ownership, the BOR stated that federal law could not legislate on the matter. States could do essentially what they wanted (and most often had an equivalent individual right in the state constitution), but no one could claim a federal constitutional right to gun ownership if a state wanted to take it away.

It wasn’t until essentially the Civil War and Reconstruction that the BOR got applied to states via the 14th Amendment. A caveat to that, even if it is totally wrong, courts have never “incorporated” the 2d Amendment via the 14th Amendment, and that, of course, is where the debate is today.

I note it because what state constitutions said prior to incorporation is very important, because that was the controlling law on gun ownership rights for individuals. Unfortunately, since incorporation of the BOR is a kind of clumsy endeavor (the 2d Amendment was written with federalist principles in mind and a recognition of how the armed forces were essentially organized), the 2d Amendment doesn’t provide easy answers to whether a “universal individual right” exists as a matter of constitutional law.

Let me be clear - I believe in that universal right and I think the original intent and history can support it. But it is subject to debate - my point is to only note that the 2d Amendment was never, ever written to be a universal right on its face - it was written to recognize state supremacy in the matter and was federalist in nature rather than absolute (Establishment Clause was the same way, among others).

11

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just as food for thought when considering the 2d Amendment and state laws, recall that the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government - as in, whatever the extent of the individual right to gun ownership, the BOR stated that federal law could not legislate on the matter. States could do essentially what they wanted (and most often had an equivalent individual right in the state constitution), but no one could claim a federal constitutional right to gun ownership if a state wanted to take it away.

It wasn’t until essentially the Civil War and Reconstruction that the BOR got applied to states via the 14th Amendment. A caveat to that, even if it is totally wrong, courts have never “incorporated” the 2d Amendment via the 14th Amendment, and that, of course, is where the debate is today.

I note it because what state constitutions said prior to incorporation is very important, because that was the controlling law on gun ownership rights for individuals. Unfortunately, since incorporation of the BOR is a kind of clumsy endeavor (the 2d Amendment was written with federalist principles in mind and a recognition of how the armed forces were essentially organized), the 2d Amendment doesn’t provide easy answers to whether a “universal individual right” exists as a matter of constitutional law.

Let me be clear - I believe in that universal right and I think the original intent and history can support it. But it is subject to debate - my point is to only note that the 2d Amendment was never, ever written to be a universal right on its face - it was written to recognize state supremacy in the matter and was federalist in nature rather than absolute (Establishment Clause was the same way, among others).[/quote]

That’s an excellent point and one many easily gloss over since the passing of the 16th amendment and the administration of King Roosevelt. Jefferson ran on a platform of ending the Alien and Sedition Acts, yet he had men in the press prosecuted and imprisoned under state laws of the same. A return to the intended dual federalism would alleviate much of this confusion.

mike

12

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Just as food for thought when considering the 2d Amendment and state laws, recall that the Bill of Rights originally only applied to the federal government …
I note it because what state constitutions said prior to incorporation is very important, because that was the controlling law on gun ownership rights for individuals. Unfortunately, since incorporation of the BOR is a kind of clumsy endeavor (the 2d Amendment was written with federalist principles in mind and a recognition of how the armed forces were essentially organized), the 2d Amendment doesn’t provide easy answers to whether a “universal individual right” exists as a matter of constitutional law.

Let me be clear - I believe in that universal right and I think the original intent and history can support it. But it is subject to debate - my point is to only note that the 2d Amendment was never, ever written to be a universal right on its face - it was written to recognize state supremacy in the matter and was federalist in nature rather than absolute (Establishment Clause was the same way, among others).

… A return to the intended dual federalism would alleviate much of this confusion.

mike[/quote]

Then, how about another precedent, from George Mason and James Madison, the Virginia Declaration of Rights, one of the source documents for BofR.

“Section 13. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.”

I read this in contention with mike:
The individual here is not guaranteed arms, but a trained body may bear arms to defend the “free state.”
That the militia is subordinated to the civil government.
A right to rebellion is nowhere guaranteed.
(A distaste for standing armies is understood, and therefore a preference for militias subject to call.)

Seems there is room for variant opinions, yes?

13

So, we don’t really have the right to free speech? Or to assemble? That it’s up to the states to recognize, or not, such rights?

14

Bear arms against what?

America is not a bunch of states who need to fend off Britain anymore.

Stop pointing to old and out-of-date law so you can have guns.

Private citizens do not need the firepower to defeat a fucking foreign military.

You have your own military for that.

Rifles for hunting are one thing.
Concealed weapons are another thing.
So are automatic assault rifles.

Stop being completely fucking retarded with the whole argument that your founding fathers said it is OK.

They were not talking about M-4’s or AK47’s.

Law is meant to change with the requirements of society of the present day.

15

[quote]Spry wrote:
Bear arms against what?

America is not a bunch of states who need to fend off Britain anymore.

Stop pointing to old and out-of-date law so you can have guns.

Private citizens do not need the firepower to defeat a fucking foreign military.

You have your own military for that.

Rifles for hunting are one thing.
Concealed weapons are another thing.
So are automatic assault rifles.

Stop being completely fucking retarded with the whole argument that your founding fathers said it is OK.

They were not talking about M-4’s or AK47’s.

Law is meant to change with the requirements of society of the present day.[/quote]

Why do you care about this one way or the other?

16

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Why do you care about this one way or the other?
[/quote]

I care and am saddened that this happens a little too regularly:

“The gunman, who police said had a shotgun and two handguns, stepped onto the lecturer’s stage near the end of a mid-afternoon geology class at Northern Illinois University and began shooting down the room, sending terrified and bleeding students fleeing, witnesses said. He then shot himself on the same stage.” Rueters

Its just sad that someone can have 2 concealed weapons at all, let alone another shotgun, all perfectly legal (in fact the state may not even question them on this fact).

How can having so much firepower ever be necessary for a private citizen?

17

[quote]Spry wrote:
Bear arms against what?

America is not a bunch of states who need to fend off Britain anymore.[/quote]

Hey Aussie, how’s your queen doing?

mike

18

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Spry wrote:
Bear arms against what?

America is not a bunch of states who need to fend off Britain anymore.

Hey Aussie, how’s your queen doing?

mike[/quote]

LOL, Good Call !

19

Hahaha! Classic. You have no idea about our constitution do you?

The queen can’t do too much to us. Our branches of goverment are elected by the people.

We have the ability to hold a referendum and remove her as our soveriegn (i.e. the Governer-General and State Governers) - which I am for. Last time this vote was held (10 or so years ago) it failed.

And that lame remark doesn’t answer the quetsion: WHY DO PRIVATE CITIZENS NEED SUCH FIREPOWER?

You, sir, are a dumb shit!

20

[quote]Spry wrote:
Hahaha! Classic. You have no idea about our constitution do you?

The queen can’t do too much to us. Our branches of goverment are elected by the people.[/quote]

And you sir, apparently have no idea what symbolism is, nor its power on the culture of a people. So far as your constitution goes:

“The Queen is represented by the Governor-General at federal level and by the Governors at state level. Although the Constitution gives extensive executive powers to the Governor-General, these are normally exercised only on the advice of the Prime Minister. The most notable exercise of the Governor-General’s reserve powers outside the Prime Minister’s direction was the dismissal of the Whitlam Government in the constitutional crisis of 1975.”

That’s from wiki, so correct me if the info is wrong.[quote]

We have the ability to hold a referendum and remove her as our soveriegn (i.e. the Governer-General and State Governers) - which I am for. Last time this vote was held (10 or so years ago) it failed.[/quote]

And thank you for making my point. You voted against (or would like to vote against) having a sovereign snicker. But you lose. In other words, your vote sucks. If America has a queen and I don’t want one, I can vote from the rooftops, which trumps EVERYONE’S vote. [quote]

And that lame remark doesn’t answer the quetsion: WHY DO PRIVATE CITIZENS NEED SUCH FIREPOWER?[/quote]

In defense of our liberty. If you think governments aren’t the prime violators of life and liberty, then you have no grasp on history or don’t watch the daily news. “Oh, but Mike you paranoid nutjob, it won’t happen here!” I won’t speak for Australian history since I’m not exactly an expert, so I’ll answer that little query for the U.S. Well, we had slavery. We had Jim Crow laws. On the orders of one man we stuck hundreds of thousands of our own citizens in internment camps because they were yellow and guys like you on my shores will certainly do the same to the Muslims after the next 9/11. That’s just a short history. Shall I go on? And they didn’t use words to put all of this into action. They used men in uniform with guns under the color of law.

Now, before you go on and say that our silly assault rifles can’t hold them back let me tell you why they can. Our government is made up of fellow citizens. Open warfare is unneccesary. All you have to do is make survival more appealing than a pension. Let’s go back to the internment of Americans of Japanese descent. Now imagine 3 or 4 people in each of these cities sniping the officers rounding these people up. You’ll quickly find the volunteer pool of men wanting this duty drying up.

Consider fighting the military. The military is made up of men like me. Half will desert off the bat. Between 30-40% of US households have guns in them depending on who you cite. That’s between 90 and 120 million citizens. Now, consider that many of those homes have a hell of a lot more than 1 gun in that house. I won’t tell you how many I have, but it’s more than 1 laugh. No nation can take out even 1 million dedicated guerrillas.

But this is all irrelevant. I suggest you concern yourself with your own country and let us get back to the work of being a superpower and continuing to foster the culture (which includes that gun culture) that allows for our continued success.

Now back to the shallow end of the pool with you. You’ve bummed me out. I really like Aussies. I guess I can’t rely on you as my go-to guy to send me VB.[quote]

You, sir, are a dumb shit![/quote]

Duly noted.

mike