Posted on 05/06/2012 6:47:53 AM PDT by marktwain
Washington DC - -(Ammoland.com)- A recent article in The New Yorker titled “American Battleground,” by Harvard’s Jill Lepore, has been gnawing at me ever since I critiqued it last week for The Daily Caller.
As I wrote then, it is a convoluted piece of quasi-academic work that is intended to make gun owners question the founders’ position on private gun ownership and, if possible, open 21st-century American minds to the idea of more gun control.
Lepore does this via subtle and not-so-subtle attacks on the Second Amendment throughout the article. By attacking the Second Amendment, she hopes to somehow convince us that we really don’t have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Rather, we were only intended to have a right to form militias to use guns in that capacity when emergencies arise.
In an attempt to prove her point, she quotes FDR’s solicitor general, Robert H. Jackson:
[The Second Amendment] is restricted to the keeping and bearing of arms by the people collectively for their common defense and security, [and that right] is not one which may be utilized for private purposes but only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the protection of the state.
This brings me to what has been gnawing at me so badly for the past week. Lepore has made a mistake that’s all too common with anti-gunners and even with some staunch defenders of the Second Amendment.
That mistake is to look at the Second Amendment as the source of our right to keep and bear arms. You see, in Lepore’s mind, if she can just disprove the “perceived meaning” of the Second Amendment, gun owners across the country will sell their gun safes, throw away their ammo and let Obama collect all the guns so we can have safer streets. But in reality, the Second Amendment is only a reflection of the dictates “of nature and of nature’s God.”
Ultimately, we don’t have rights because the Bill of Rights says so. Rather, the Bill of Rights says so because we have rights intrinsic to our very beings: rights with which we were endowed by our Creator.
One of the reasons Lepore and her fellow academics don’t teach students about natural law anymore is that they don’t want students to understand that long before the U.S. government existed, God had endowed his creatures with rights.
These rights were explained and defended at length by men like John Locke and William Blackstone long before ideas like the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights were even passing thoughts.
Last years record 15 million background checks/gun sales was a record to be beaten this year.
Killing babies in the womb is a natural right, too???? That’s what the law says....Is it right?? Of course not. It’s ridiculous.
Those who do not learn from history are bound to repeat it.
Without the second amendment, the first amendment would be a meaningless, empty promise. The second amendment at its core enshrines as fundamental, the American citizen’s right to SELF DEFENSE, from tyranny and from criminals. In our society police are largely agents for insurance companies and courts, making records of what happened, sometimes eventually arresting the guilty. They do not and can not protect citizens whose lives liberty or property are threatened. Leftists have tried and continue to try to demean dismiss devalue and diminish the importance and true meaning of the second amendment. They are anti-liberty and delusional. They are threatened by freedom because the implications of freedom are that they need to be responsible for their own lives and are not entitled to assume power over others who are more capable than themselves.
I disabused one of my colleagues on this once. He stated “the 2nd Amendment give you the right..”- and I cut him off right there. “No, it recognizes a right that already exists. The Bill of Rights is a sheet of paper- the rights that are on it you have regardless if it exists or not.” He looked at me funny and then shut up.
Please remember that all the Colonial States were told to Pass their State Constitution BEFORE the Federal Constitution was approved.
“Please remember that all the Colonial States were told to Pass their State Constitution BEFORE the Federal Constitution was approved.”
Told? No, they chose to do that. Each state had to come up with its own framework for government- no central government told them to. They did it of their own accord.
“The Bill of Rights LIMITS the role of THE FEDERAL Government BUT GAVE STATES the RIGHT to deal with other matters. “
Certainly, it was. However, you have a right to bear arms, regardless of what state you live in. It is a natural right of mankind, rather like freedom of speech. No government has the right to abridge either to the point of uselessness, be it state, federal, or foreign.
An accurate but historically ignorant argument.
The American Bill of Rights was preceded by almost 100 years by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which formally recognized pre-existing rights of English citizens recently denied by the English government under James II. This was an effect of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, by which the Whigs won final victory over royal absolutism.
When the American colonists spoke of “the rights of Englishmen,” they were almost always referring to rights as outlined in the 1689 Bill of Rights. I find it extremely odd that this document is so poorly known in America.
The 1689 Bill says, “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”
This is an obvious precursor to our 2nd Amendment, though it of course is severely limited, recognizing limitations on the right by religion, by class and by future laws. Most other European countries allowed bearing of arms by some citizens, those thought likely to support the government, usually limited by class and religion.
The 2nd Amendment removed all these restrictions and recognized the natural law right of ALL people to keep and bear arms regardless of their status or religion, and removing the right of laws to infringe on this right.
IOW, the 2nd was not a novel document. All states had recognized the right of some groups to keep and bear arms. The 2nd merely extended these rights to all men, in keeping with the equal rights recognized by the Declaration of Independence.
True.
However, until the passage of the 14th Amendment the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states, which could and did pass and enforce many laws infringing the right to keep and bear arms, notably with regard to free black men not having such right.
Many conservatives object to the limitations on states’ rights the doctrine of incorporation via the 14th imposes. Arguably correctly. They should bear in mind that recent Supreme Court rulings prohibiting states from interfering on the RTKBA are based on precisely that doctrine.
“All states had recognized the right of some groups to keep and bear arms.”
When I posted this I was using “state” in its original sense of “country,” not of an American state.
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Perennial Practice Makes Perfect Precedent:
The 2nd Amendment was not preceded by a vacuum of 180 years of no right-to-bear-arms laws, customs and traditions. The Second Amendment did not appear out of thin air nor spring forth in full form as Athena sprang from Zeus` head fully armed and clothed. A paper trail does exist for the origin of the Second Amendment.
Au contraire: there is a written record of right to bear arms LAWS from 1643, all incorporated into subsequent practices, laws, treaties and constitutions from 1644, ending with the synoptic short version in the U.S. Constitution whose framers relied heavily upon their own State Constitutions which were written in some cases 10 years prior to the U.S. Constitution.
It would appear that the 2nd Amendment put into writing that which had been practiced for 145 years by the citizens of old New Netherlands and New York, and other states as well. One of my ancestors in 1676 had weapons in Ipswich, Massachusetts, used during the "New England Indian Wars", as well as 1668 in a domestic dispute with his father`s weapon, which the latter had in 1649. This Dutch settler right to bear arms and later English right to bear arms was incorporated into Native American treaties of 1753 and 1795 and NY State Constitution of 1777. The Mohawk,/Confederacy Treaties guaranteed the Indians right to bear arms forever on their reservations.
Thus the colonists and citizens resp. had unwritten rights to bear arms. Otherwise the Native Americans would have been guaranteed more rights to bear arms in writing, than the colonists and citizens. -Give me a break. Reductio ad absurdum.
Actually, in fact, this right to bear arms stems from the Dutch tradition and regulations, Dutch LAWS in New York State dating to 1643,45,46. The English conquerors of New Netherlands never invalidated these written rights of the Dutch to bear arms nor confiscated their firearms, but actually kept them on as a ready-made frontier militia, [e.g., Saratoga blockhouse 1690`s] as a buffer against incursions of the French and their Native American allies. The civilian Dutch were recorded as having firearms under the English as late as 1753 just before French began reinforcing their fortified positions on the New York/Canada frontier. (My family has been here since 1644.) viz:
This first section primarily focuses on the Dutch colonial firearm tradition and laws for New Netherlands which extended from New York City [New Amsterdam] to the border of Canada and west to Lake Erie and Lake Ontario.)
Here`s a bite of a Copperhead from Rattlesnake Hill
Don`t Tread On Me
THE DUTCH/ANGLO/AMERICAN PRECEDENT OF THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS
Freemen Protect Their Families by Force of Arms 1643 August Dutch-Indian War in New Netherlands... ``On the other hand, the enemy [N.A.`s] is strong and mighty. They have formed an alliance, one with another, with more than seven different tribes, well supplied with muskets, powder, and ball, which they have procured and daily receive from private traders, in exchange for beaver, and with which they murder our people. The woods and thickets are now also useful to them, for they have removed all their women, children, and old men into the interior. The rest of the warriors daily menace our lives with fire and sword, and threaten to attack the fort with all their strength, now consisting of fifteen hundred men...Our population consists, for the most part, of women and children. The freemen (not counting the English) are about two hundred in number, who must protect, by force of arms, their families, which now lie concealed in straw huts, around outside the fort.` Jameson, p.333, "Representation of New Netherland"; O`Callaghan, "Hist. Of New Netherland", Vol.1, pp.290-291
The Right To Bear Firearms, Side-arms and Other Weapons For Self-Defence
1644 December 16 `the colonists [Dutch in New Netherland] and servants should be bound, under certain penalties, to provide themselves with good fire-arms, and other weapons for self-defence...But it should be [in New Netherland] absolutely forbidden, that either the freemen should sell to the Indians, or the licensd traders to the freemen, any arms or munitions of war, on pain of heavy punishment to be inflicted therefor, lest the Indians, being strengthened thereby, may hereafter be encouraged to do us more injury than they can now, in their impotency, inflict. But it shall be obligatory on the freemen to be provide, each with a good musket and side-arms for self-defence, as already mentioned in the 5th point. An inspection thereof shall be had by the Director every six months.' O`Callaghan, "Hist. Of New Netherland", Vol.1, pp.422-423, "Appendix E, Report and Advice on the condition of New Netherland, drawn up from documents and papers placed by the commission of the Assembly of the XIX., dated 15 Dec., 1644 in the hands of the General Chambers of Accounts"
Arms For Security and Defence
1645 in New Netherland: `Means were to be adopted to induce the colonists to form towns and villages, and to provide themselves with arms for their security and defence.` O`Callaghan, "Hist. Of New Netherland", Vol.2, p.18
1645: "The persons hereinafter specified shall be maintained to garrison the fort, on such allowances as shall be found most advantageous for the Company, and for greater security, the colonists and their domestics shall be holden, under certain penalties, to provide themselves with good muskets, and other weapons for their own defence, so as to be able, in time of necessity, with the garrison, to resist a general attack, without the Director, colonists, or whosoever it may be, having the power to take into the pay of the Company any soldiers..." O`Callaghan, "Hist. Of New Netherland", p.560
Right of Possession & Use of Arms For Their Own Defense, Including Ammunition
1649: "New England is divided into four Colonies, which they style Provinces. Each Colony hath its Governor, and neither Patroons, Lords nor Princes are known there ; only the People. Each Governor is like a Sovereign in his place...; and this is what we have learned from divers of the English respecting New England. In Military affairs they have also some ffeneralia [sic]which we shall pass over with a word or two. All their inhabitants, burghers, farmers, planters and servants bear arms, and thereto each particular place hath its arrangement . They are divided into separate companies, and are commanded by their Majors and-Colonel* who are the Governors. la. case of invasion or other necessity each town knows, according to its strength, the quota either in men or money which it must contribute to the member or members in danger, according to the federation and order agreed upon in the case, among themselves: from this league is excepted only the difference which the Southern English have with the Dutch, in regard to occupation and settlement of boundaries and time may determine ..." "Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York"; Procured in Holland,. England and France, 1856, London Documents XXVI, Vol. .--p.267
1650 in New Netherland: "IV. Whereas their High mightinesses have learnt that the commonality of New Netherland either were not obliged to cultivate, or had neglected the possession and use of arms for their own defence, each of the said inhabitants shal therefore be bound to provide himself with a good musket, with powder and lead, necessary thereto, and be enrolled and formed into a guard, causing the said guns to be stamped and inspected, and all persons are forbidden to sell his stamped gun, or to deprive himself or his family thereof." O`Callaghan, "Hist. Of New Netherland", Vol.2, p.134, `Provisional Order for the Government, Preservation and Peopling of New Netherland`
1650`s New Netherland: also cf. ibid., p.430 "the town contained 40 men capable of bearing arms"
also cf. ibid., p. 126, 1650: "...thirty guns by the Director`s orders. These were delivered to Commissary Keyser, with directions to sell them to the Dutch colonists, who were unprovided with arms, so as to enable them to defend themselves. This Keyser did"
also cf. ibid., p.521 "Staten Island is a two good (Dutch) miles from the fort (Amsterdam). It was settled on the south side, out of sight of the fort, by ten or twelve men capable of bearing arms."
also cf. ibid., pp312-316 in year 1657: "They finally craved arms and ammunition for self-defence, on paying therefor, and that whatever writings may pass between themselves and the government be in English, so that they " may fully and perfectly understand them." Thomas Wheeler, Thomas Newman, and John Lord were Mar.28. selected as magistrates, but the conclusions on the other demands were postponed until the Director and Council should have an opportunity to consult the petitioners. Thus happily terminated a misunderstanding which threatened, at first, a different issue. This settlement was henceforward called " Oostdorp" by the Dutch, and East-town by the English. footnote:" 1 The Jan. 3. Council thereupon sent them twelve muskets; a dozen pounds of powder ; the same quantity of lead; two bundles of matches, and one writing book for the magistrates."
Militia 1650
"In this way he is taxed to build and support churches and schools ; to maintain preachers and schoolmasters; to erect public buildings in cities and villages ; to construct and repair all highways and bridges ; to support governors, magistrates, constables, and other officers of justice ; and to pay the several officers of the militia."
O`Callaghan, Hist. of New Netherland, p.153
1655 " Considering it wiser to secure one's own house than to aim at the possession of one at a distance, especially as the loss of the first might be caused thereby," the Council at Fort Amsterdam dispatched an express to the South River recalling the Director-general, for bodies of savages continued prowling over the island, firing and burning whatever came in their way. Whilst this terror still prevailed, Stuyvesant returned to the Manhattans, and by his energy and zeal aided much in re-assuring the colonists, Chap. He sent soldiers to the out-settlements, laid an embargo on the vessels then about to sail, and ordered such of the passengers as were able to bear arms not to depart " until it should please God to change the aspect of affairs." A plank curtain was thrown up, to prevent the Indians scaling the city walls, to meet the expense of which six thousand three hundred guilders were raised " from the merchants, traders, skippers, factors, passengers and citizens generally."2 No persons, on any account, were to go into the country without permission, nor unless in a number sufficient to ensure their safety..." ibid, p.293
1656,1664
"At the commencement of Stuyvesant's administration, the number of persons capable of bearing arms is stated to have been between two hundred and fifty and three hundred, in and around the capital.3 Including Rensselaerswyck, this would give a population of two thousand souls. In 1664, the number is estimated at " full ten thousand."4 New of New Amsterdam contained, in 1656, when first surveyed by dam. Capt. de Koninck, one hundred and twenty houses, and one thousand souls. The former increased in 1660, when a map of the capital was made, to over three hundred and fifty,5 whilst the population augmented, in 1664, to fifteen hundred. Of these, not quite two hundred and fifty were male adults; the balance, between twelve and thirteen hundred, consisted of women, and children below eighteen years of age." ibid, p.540
Militia 1659 New Netherlands
"Nothing could overcome the reluctance of the burghers. " The one disheartened the other; the more violent maintaining that they were obliged to-defend only their own homes, and that no citizen could be forced to jeopardize his life in fighting barbarous savages." Discouraged and almost deprived of hope by this opposition, the Director-general again summoned the city magistrates; he informed them that he had now some forty men, and expected between twenty and thirty Englishmen from the adjoining villages. He, therefore, ordered that the three companies of the city militia be paraded next day in his presence, armed and equipped, in order that one last effort be made to obtain volunteers." ibid. p.399
Articles of Capitulation of the Dutch to the English 1664 [right-to-bear arms of Dutch guaranteed by surrender treaty to English.
ARTICLES OF CAPITULATION. " I. We consent that the States General, or the West India Company, shall freely injoy all farms and houses (except such as are in the forts) and that within six months, they shall have free liberty to transport all such arms and ammunition, as now does belong to them, or else they shall be paid for them."
... " III. All people shall still continue free denizens, and shall injoy their lands, houses, goods, wheresoever they are within this country, and dispose of them as they please."
'VIII. The Dutch here shall injoy [sic] the liberty of their consciences in divine worship and church discipline*"
"X. That the townsmen of the Manhattans shall not have any soldiers quartered upon them, without being satisfied and paid for them by their officers, and that at this present, if the fort be not capable of lodging all the soldiers, then the Burgomasters, by their officers, shall appoint some houses capable to receive them."
" XIX. The officers military, and soldiers, shall march out with their arms, drums beating, and colours flying, and lighted matches; and if any of them will plant, they shall have fifty acres of land set out for them; if any of them will serve as servants, they shall continue with all safety, and become free denizens afterwards."
1664 New Netherlands
1664 ". The Chap delegates were now called on for supplies. A force of one hundred and fifty soldiers would require thirty thou-[ 1664]. sand guilders per annum. If this could not be furnished, every third man should take up arms. But this would not be exacted. Every fifth or sixth man would suffice. With these and the present soldiers, the Indian war could be terminated in a year. If these were refused, then the responsibility would not rest on the Director and Council." ibid. p.507
Pre-Constitution Practices
1710 July "...each member of the 1709 expedition to Canada might keep as his own forever the Queen`s musket that would be furnished to him. ["On the next day appeared a proclamation from the governor announcing the aforesaid "encouragements," calling on last year's soldiers to enlist again, promising that all should return home as soon as Port Royal was taken, and that each might keep as his own forever the Queen's musket that would be furnished him."] "-Parkman, "Half", Vol. I, p.144
1775 April 19? Connecticut do. do.
[431]" And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, That each inhabitant so inlisted shall be furnished with good fire-arms, and that the fire-arms belonging to this Colony, wherever they are, shall be collected and put into the hands of such inlisted inhabitants as have not arms of their own ; and that each inlisted inhabitant that shall provide arms for himself, well fixed with a good bayonet and cartouch box, shall be paid a premium of ten shillings ; and in case such arms are lost by inevitable casualty, such inhabitant providing himself as aforesaid shall be allowed and paid the just value of such arms and implements so lost, deducting only said sum of ten shillings allowed as aforesaid: said premum of ten shillings to be paid as soon as such inhabitant shall provide such arms as aforesaid. That where the aforesaid provision fails, sufficient arms shall be impress'd, compleatly to arm and equip said inhabitants: the said impress to be limited only to the arms belonging to house-holders and other persons not on the militia roll; and in case any householder or other person shall voluntarily furnish any inlisted inhabitant, not able to procure arms for himself, with a good, gun, well fixed with a good bayonet and cartouch box, shall have and receive a premium of ten shillings, and in case of loss shall receive the value thereof, deducting the said ten shillings as aforesaid ; and also that every person from whom any gun shiill be impress'd, as aforesaid, shall be paid for the use of such gun the sum of four shillings, and in case of loss shall be paid the just value of such gun, deducting the sum of four shillings aforesaid ; and that a particular account be taken of the arms that may be used, and the same be all apprized by indifferent judges; and that if any inlisted inhabitant through negligence shall lose or damage the arms found for him, as aforesaid, such loss or damage shall be deducted out of his wages." "The public records of the colony of Connecticut [1636-1776",p.418
BOSTONIANS BEAR ARMS
``After the Battle of Lexington, British General Thomas Gage occupied Boston, Massachusetts. After negotiating with the town committee, Gage agreed to let the inhabitants of Boston leave town with their families and effects, if they surrendered all arms. While most of the residents of Boston stayed, those who left under the agreement surrendered 1778 firearms, 634 pistols, 273 bayonets, and only 38 blunderbusses``.[14]
14^ Abiel Holmes (1829). The Annals of America, Volume II. Hillard and Brown. p. 242 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunderbuss
1775 Col. Prescott grabbed his musket on the way to Bunker Hill. - my family tradition
1775 -6 other of my ancestors had their weapons at hand at Bunker Hill [Breed`s]-family tradition.
1777 July Private Joseph Pulsifer, Company of militia commanded by Lt. Col. David Webster (Plymouth) marched to reinforce garrison at Ticonderoga on Alarm of July 1777, proceded [sic] as far as Cavendish where met troops in retreat from Ticonderoga. [New Hampshire State Papers, Vol. XIV Revolutionary Rolls Vol.2] 187B
1777 7 other: my 7 ancestors had their own weapons at Battle of Saratoga II.
Pre-Constitution Practices and Several Precedent State Constitutions
THE SECOND AMENDMENT DID NOT COME INTO BEING OUT OF THIN AIR-
THE SEVERAL STATES EXISTED FIRST BEFORE THE UNITED STATES EXISTED-
The States Constitutional Rights Came First before the USA or the U.S. Constitution Existed
The GUN RIGHTS advocates should file also for states` rights in Obama`s and other sttes`violation of their respective state constitutions which have more explicit right-to-bear-arms- freedom clauses language than the U.S. Constitution and have precedent used as the basis for the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment appears merely to have synopsized the explicit language in the States` Constitutions, because that is where the 13 original colonies/states spelled out their states` citizens` constitutional rights and they knew that this is where the Second Amendment originated.
The Second Amendment did not originate out of thin air but was born out of the states` constitutions` explicit right-to-bears-arms freedom clauses language.
For example:
`XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of EVERY MAN who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.`
www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm [NY 1777 Constitution] (my caps)
Vermont Constitution `Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State
MILITIA
§ 59. Militia The inhabitants of this State shall be trained and armed for its defense, under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions, as Congress, agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, and the Legislature of this State, shall direct.`
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784
`PART I. - THE BILL OF RIGHTS
II. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights. among which are --the enjoying and defending life and liberty --acquiring, possessing and protecting property --and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness`
Maine Constitution 1820
`Keep and bear arms Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.`
Massachusetts Constitution 1780
`Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.`
Connecticut Constitution
`Sec. 17. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state`
North Carolina Constitution 1776
17. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of 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.
=======================
Pennsylvania Constitution 1776 XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the 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.
Practices post-Constitution
My g-g-g-grandfathers uncles and cousins` families have had arms continuously in Crown Point, NY since 1797.
1812 During the War of 1812, settlers in the Adirondacks asked the New York Militia for help against raiding N.A.s. They were told to fend for themselves. (My G-G-Great-grandfather Amos had 3 muskets used to defend against raiding Canadian Indian allies of the British [Family Tradition; other sources; Coolidge, Watson, Crockett?.]
1814 September 4: 700 Militia [with own weapons rallied from Essex and Clinton [rallied] counties [NY] had assembled at Plattsburgh and were immediately placed on the front line first picket. They attacked the British first across the river, not waiting for the U.S. Army regulars to decide what to do. Crockett, p.268 , Crockett, Wm. H., "A History of Lake Champlain". Hubart J. Shanley & Co., 1909, Crown Collection, New York State Library *
Precedent, Practice, and Tradition of War Trophies
1865 Custer`s Morgan Chargers, the Great New York Fifth, NY 5th Cavalry, who captured the supply train headed for Lee at Appomattox, [General Custer: ``Where are my Morgan Chargers?!! Col. Hammond: ``Here we are Sir!` Custer: Go get that train, Boys!`` Hammond`s Crown Point Co. C .& Ticonderoga Cavalry, my g-grandfathers, brought their weapons and Morgan chargers home - I personally fired one of their big octagon rifles when I was 14 and it hurt my shoulder.
1918 -My g-uncles brought home WWI German and English sniper rifles
Local Laws There are actually places where state or local laws require the purchase of firearms. Kennesaw Georgia is one example. Kennesaw Code of Ordinances contains this:
Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b) Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.
(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)
1945 My uncles brought home German lugars and U.S. carbines, and were shown off in the 4th of July parades and at the local American Legion Hall exhibits which I witnessed as a boy.[accounts and pictures published in local newspaper `]
1953 Rifles, carbines brought back from Korea by my relatives which I witnessed.
1975 I saw my vet friends and relatives brought home VC/NVA AK-47`s right through San Francisco Airport openly. It was an accepted practice and tradition to bring home war souvenirs unmolested .
Bearing of Arms before infringement laws
1957 As a 14-year old teenager, bought at the local U.S. Army Store, a semi-automatic 20 shot .22 rifle to shoot on the farm. Later, Under NY State law, I carried around the unloaded .22 LR breech open on the back seat window of my 1951 Dodge so troopers could see it. This was infgringed in 1970 in NY State.
Modern-Day Practices of Bearing Arms
2009 One can still park his/her shotgun outside a door of a store legally in Vermont [since late 1700`s]
2010 "The History Channel" broadcast "WWII HD"and DVD shows WW2 American soldiers bringing home German pistols, rifles, bayonets, etc. as war trophies
[Not to mention the Mohawk et alii N.A. treaties with the Dutch, English, and New York (1) prior to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing them their right to arms forever. . on the reservation til now with automatic weapon s thereon.]
My mother, who is 92, had a .22 when she was 18 and can still pop rats off at 25 yards.
All my brothers and sisters were taught how to fire a .22 LR when they were 8 years old, plinking tin cans off a log at 50 yards.
My family has borne arms since 1644, an unbroken line of weapons on the mantle.
Summa: A Priori Practices and State Constitutions have Precedence over any oral and paper arguments against any part or whole of the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment wasn`t born out of Thin Air nor born out of just quill ink. The 2nd Amendment was born out of powder burns, blood, suffering, sacrifice and state constitutions pre-dating the U.S. Constitution.
Don`t Tread On Me!
From Rattlesnake Hill,
Fort Ticonderoga Taken from the British by Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain Boys by Force of Arms May 10 1775.
The Second Amendment came into being by baptism of fire.
The Right To Bear Arms
``THIS RIGHT SHALL NEVER BE QUESTIONED.``
-Maine Constitution, 1820
Thank you for the wonderful post.
>The Bill of Rights LIMITS the role of THE FEDERAL Government BUT GAVE STATES the RIGHT to deal with other matters.
>
>Please remember that all the Colonial States were told to Pass their State Constitution BEFORE the Federal Constitution was approved.
Then you are wrong; if the States had Constitutions BEFORE the federal Constitution was written then the States had, prior to the Constitution, ALL powers inherent to a nation. Indeed, the federal Constitution delegates certain (and very limited powers) to the federal institution and does not GIVE the States any rights at all. (e.g. coining monies; treaties, agreements, and negotiations; declarations of war.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.