Saul Cornell: The Second Amendment of their imagination

Ny daily news ^ | June 22, 2016 | Saul Cornell

[lowbridge]

But those who constantly appeal to that sentence in the Constitution as an obstacle to reasonable gun regulation are ignorant about the Founders’ own views about gun regulation.

Any honest historian of the early Republic will tell you that lax gun laws are not in fact pro-Second Amendment; they are anti-Second Amendment.

-snip

Pennsylvania, in its 1776 Constitution, was the first state to include an express provision affirming the right to bear arms. It also passed a stringent loyalty oath that disarmed a large proportion of its population.

Similar oaths were in force in most of the other states. When Congress considered amendments to the federal Constitution, New Hampshire offered an alternative to the text of what eventually became the Second Amendment. That proposal would have prohibited Congress from disarming “any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”

Congress wisely rejected this extreme measure because it would have made America at the time less secure. But the State of New Hampshire had disarmed loyalists during the Revolution. No one disputed that it was perfectly legal for the state to do this; the concern was giving Congress the same power that states had already exercised repeatedly.

The Founders were also aware of a variety of common-law restrictions on keeping and bearing arms. Under common law, any person in the community could approach a justice of the peace and demand that an individual be preemptively disarmed if they posed a danger to public safety. Such persons would be required to post a peace bond, much like a modern bail bond.

All of which is to say, the right to keep and bear arms was never an absolute freedom. It was always balanced against public safety.

[FBRhawk]

Ships of war were routinely held in private hands in revolutionary times. Letters of Marque were given to private individuals who had light warships armed with cannon.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***tanks, ships of war,***

I'm still waiting on my letters of Marque and Reprisal.

What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,

and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.

[Spktyr]

“Ships of war” were not only permissible for private ownership to the Founders, but encouraged. Where do you think they were to get ships for ‘Letters of Marque and Reprisal’ that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?

That’s right, the Founders had NO problem with people owning battleship-equivalents.

[Wonder Warthog]

A better set of sources are not the state constitutions post 1783, but the "independent colony" constitutions post 1776 but prior to 1783. Connecticut's says something like..."any citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and his own state, and the taking of game".

I take that to mean 1)"self defense" 2) service in the state militia, and 3) hunting.

The "well-regulated Militia" clause does not LIMIT the right...it simply states why GOVERNMENT should assure that the citizenry is armed AND TRAINED. Just because government has failed to keep up their end of the responsibility does not detract from the rights of the citizenry one iota.

[Chewbarkah]

The Bill of Rights was drafted and passed in the first Congress, which included some of the Founders (significantly, Speaker of the House James Madison), and a lot of newer, perhaps lesser, lights. It was subsequently ratified by the States.

During the drafting of the 2nd Amendment, the MASSACHUSETTS delegation tired to insert pro-gun control language as used in their pro-gun control State constitution. That attempt went nowhere because the majority of State representatives did not want it. Saul Cornell wants to rewrite history and pretend the stick-up-the-ass Federalist Monocrats prevailed. They didn’t, but they are still trying.

[DCBryan1]

ships of war, etc.

Wrong. Look up the history of privateers and corvettes under letters of Marque and reprisal.

The government didnt have enough naval FIREPOWER and enlisted PRIVATE CITIZENS with CANNONS and war implements early in the republic.

If my neighbor wants a M1 Abrams, fine: 1) Keep it on your side of the road, 2) Don't fire main armament after I put my kids to bed, and 3) invite me to a live fire every once in a while.

[Chewbarkah]

“the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Bolstering your point, the right to keep and bear arms is explicitly vested in the PEOPLE, not the militia.

[newfreep]

Was “Saul” named after his hero, Saul Alinsky?

[Wonder Warthog]

"There are weapons that truly have no business in the hands of the people - nuclear weapons, tanks, ships of war, etc. - and those restricted to licensed people - i.e., automatic weapons."

History disagrees with you. For a huge chunk of history, private citizens (admittedly wealthy ones) owned cannon-equipped naval vessels (ships of war)- the nearest equivalent of the "nuclear weapon" of the era. Often more than one.

Prior to the 1930's, you could buy a full-auto Thompson at a hardware store. And that era was far more law-abiding than today in spite of that.

[Mr Rogers]

The “militia” of the time included any man capable of bearing arms. There wasn’t a standing army and there were no police forces back then. If the Indians came raiding, or a bad guy needed to be chased, adult men grabbed their guns and acted as ‘militia’.

Well regulated meant trained and equipped to do the job. So guys with guns and who knew how to use them formed “a well regulated militia”.

IIRC.

[thorvaldr]

He also references pre constituiton laws written by people involved in a dirty insurgency against the most powerful empire on earth. Not even approaching relevancy.

[Dahoser]

Here's what we know and what most other people including too many in Congress don't know or want to know: The Bill of Rights isn't about what we can do; it's about what the federal government cannot do.

1. It cannot abridge the freedom of speech or of the press, establish a religion or prevent exercise of one.
2. It cannot infringe on bearing arms.
3. It cannot put troops in people's houses without consent.
4. It cannot search and seize however it likes.
5. It cannot compel us to be witnesses against ourselves.
6. It cannot withhold the nature of charges of against us.
7. It cannot deny a jury trial.
8. It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment.
9. It cannot use what's listed above as an exclusive list of rights and deny others as a result.
10. It cannot take more power than it's been explicitly given.

We need leaders who understand this and argue from this standpoint rather than most of the current ones who try to limit the infringement to something they consider acceptable under the circumstances.

[Ann de IL]

thanks

[MosesKnows]

the right to keep and bear arms was never an absolute freedom

I trust the author understands that the 2nd amendment does not grant the individual the right to own a means of defense. The 2nd amendment protects the individual's right to own a means defense from government interference.

Some folks like to twist the words and the meaning of the 2nd amendment to suit their socialist agenda. Let's review the words the founders’ ratified.

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.

A well educated Public, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated Internet being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Modems shall not be infringed.

A well educated elite, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to become educated shall not be infringed.

This does not give only the people who are members of a militia the right to own a gun, or only people who read the right to own books, or only people who use the Internet the right to own a modem, or only the elite the right to be educated.

[Jack Hammer]

Some self-satisfied, self-appointed “expert” vents a bit of gas.

Yawn.

[Col Freeper]

Saul, Saul, I see you are locating your 2nd Amendent "facts" in the same manner that all Leftists do.

[philman_36]

All able men between the ages of 18 and 60 with required training sessions.

Title 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

[AllAmericanGirl44]

bkmk