Skip to comments.Rights Protected by the Second Amendment are Being Restored, NOT Created
Posted on 01/24/2023 4:00:13 AM PST by marktwain
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-— The jurisprudence of the Second Amendment is: it was ratified to protect the existing right of the people to keep and bear arms. It did not create new rights. One reason to protect the right was to enable the creation of militias from the armed population.
It was well understood, at the time of ratification, the right to keep and bear arms included the right to do so for self-defense as well as community defense, for hunting, and included the ancillary rights to practice, buy, sell and make weapons, as well as ammunition and accessories for them. These rights were not disputed and were considered to be derived from the natural rights to life and liberty. From Heller:
1. 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. Pp. 2–53.
The American Second Amendment was recognized as needed because the English right to arms had been construed too narrowly to protect the colonists against the exercise of power by King George and the British Empire. The Americans had recently fought a long and bitter war sparked by the British attempts at disarming the American colonists. The initial battles of Lexington and Concord were direct attempts by the representatives of the British Crown to confiscate gunpowder and, particularly, cannon. Cannon were crew served weapons. The officers of the Crown confiscated plenty of individual weapons as well.
On April 3, 1775, the British government seized 13,425 musket cartridges with ball.
On April 19, the famous battles of Lexington and Concord occurred.
After April 19, General Gage worked to disarm Bostonians:
Then per the Connecticut Current newspaper, a General Gage decided to change the British narrative.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Law abiding gun owners — a huge segment of our population — should not be deprived of their Constitutional right not to become victims — of lax law enforcement and young criminals emerging from our rotten culture.
Rights are “being” restored? Abolish the ‘86 firearms act signed by Reagan, then I’ll believe it.
The Constitution does not "grant" anything.
Repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act and I'll believe it.
A minority race career criminal? Lock them up without regard to race and throw away the key.
We need gun laws because criminals have no laws. Eliminate criminals and then we can eliminate gun laws.
The right of self defense is given by God.
Let’s do the 1934 NFA as well while we’re at it. And 1968 GCA.
‘That Was Then,This Is Now!’
XLNT Dean- Superbly done.
Boy, I can’t wait to see what happens with the lawsuits in IL.
I have been wondering if the M-14 rifle was ever surplused before 1968. US rifles had always been made available to civilians when the military no longer wanted them. The same rifles used by US forces. It should still be so.
No. None were.
The 1934 NFA makes the matter (unconstitutionally) complicated. ALL M-14 rifles were originally select fire. Therefore, they were and always are (by the unconstitutional NFA 1934) machine guns. Selling them to We the People, as was done with the M1, M1903, and some other weapons would require (unconstitutionally) registering them with the BATF, payment of a transfer tax, etc.
Until the unconstitutional 1986, 1968, and 1934 acts of Congress are discarded and sanity returns, we won't see surplus M2, M14, M16, M4 etc being sold by the CMP.
Thanks. I understood they would have required the tax stamp and wondered if any were.
The trouble now is the “in common use” caveat in the recent SCOTS decisions. The select fire rifles are not in common use only because they are banned. If surplus M-14 and M-16 rifles could be had, they would certainly be in common use.
Agree ... and that even applies to new build rifles for the citizen market. There is no technological or engineering for a select-fire rifle to cost more than a semi-auto only. They would be in common use if they weren’t banned or prohibitively taxed.
Historically, the framers took for granted that the contents of the ninth and tenth amendments were implied and not necessary to articulate. Because the Antifederalists were able to stir up opposition on the basis that the ninth and tenth amendments were necessary, and that 1A, 2A, etc were therefore also necessary, the framers agreed to add them by amendment on a priority basis as the price of getting what they were desperate for - ratification of the Constitution and the creation of a serious national government.
Thus, in the case of 1A and 2A in particular, we see wording which basically denies the need for the amendments - “the freedom of speech," "the freedom of the press,” “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” If a right exists, why pass an amendment to enforce it?
But what exactly were (hence are) the scope of these rights? In writing Heller, Scalia did a deep dive into history to define what RKBA entailed and thus does entail. He did not just wave his hand and say “RKBA.”
Likewise “the” freedom of the press was - thus (properly) is - bounded. Pornography laws existed at the time of the founding, and so did libel law. Consequently, “the” freedom referred to in 1A was conservative - 1A did not assay to modify pornography or libel law. At all. And thus the matter stood, from the passage of the BoR to the 1964 handing down of the (unanimous) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision by the Warren Court. Sullivan limits the right of government officials - including judges - to sue for libel. It does so on the basis that politics should be a free-fire zone between (presumptively) roughly equal contestants who can give as good as they take.
It was easy enough for the justices of the Warren Court - “liberals” all - to trust the MSM to have their back. The six Republican-named justices now sitting on SCOTUS? Not so much.
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.