Posted on 03/13/2006 12:38:29 PM PST by neverdem
Which author are you describing, Ron Miller?
"Good heavens! Then why bother with the permit?"
By that logic, why bother with a gun? Unless, of course, bad guys are in the habit of attacking folks at the gun range. I have a concealed carry permit and I rarely ever carry, but someday they may find a way to stop issuing them and maybe those who already have one may be grandfathered. I generally trust government...trust them to do the wrong thing.
Too sad... well, maybe not.
Just think of all the females in the military being slaughtered by our own GIs. /sarcasm
Where are the records of arrests for possessing arms in Revolutionary times?
Well said. BTTT
We hear so often about the 2nd Amendment and we rarely hear about the 44 state constitutions with language clearly stating the right to keep and bear arms. I'm not aware of a historical study of militias since 1792. Such a study would be helpful in enlightening the befuddled. But if they missed the train of reason at the first stop, it's unlikely that they would have sense enough to hop aboard if it passed by again.
Forgot to mention why I posted.
While looking through some books that I inherited, I opened one that is some kind of historical account of Michigan. Within its pages, there is an account of several groups of militias from Michigan that reported for duty during the Civil War. Each of the militias had a name related to an area and rather than suggesting the numbered division or battalion of a standing army. I'll have to dig it out later and take another look.
"Sorry, you are wrong, the first C is for Carrying. Carrying Concealed Weapons, but concealed is the operative word when you are out in public. It is ok to tell people you know that you have one as long as you don't shout it out in public and let the general public know you have a weapon on you.
To put it in perspective though, we shouldn't have to have a permit to exercise our 2nd amendment rights. If we keep fighting we may make it back to that point eventually!"
Actually, we never were at that point. The founders never discussed the concealed carry of weapons. Lawyers did, decades later,but the earliest records of serious discussion began in state courts in 1840. The record of these court cases has two things in common. The first is the recognition that the bill of rights applied restrictions on Congress and not the states and second, having dismussed the second as not applicable to the state, they considered concealed carry and generally precluded it except under specified conditions.
We have never had a second amendment right to carry concealed. We do have a lot of state rights do do so but not based on the second.
There are several flavors of milita under the law. The Militia act covered the unorganized reserve militia. The best description of that that I know of comes from a court case in the 1880's Presser v Illinois.
Here is the best section on the militia
"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing
arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful
resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."
Presser v Illinois US Supreme Court 1885
The "constitutional provisions' they discuss are differences between the federal laws on militias and the Illinois laws. The court did not rule on these as they were able to reach an opinion without such a ruling, though they did write an opinion that read like the state was in trouble if challenged with a better case.
On top of that, most states, if not all, have their own right to bear arms amendments in the state constitution. The right to carry implies the right to carry concealed unless otherwise stated in the amendment. Neither your argument or the arguments of 1840 are valid, they simply wanted to override the rights of the people.
If the bill of rights doesn't extend to the states, what was the use of writing them? A slave to the govenment is a slave, whether that government be state or feds.
"Jackson Greys" are names of at least two groups from the Confederacy, as well, one in Virginia and another in Louisiana.
Found an out-of-print book By: Stanley D Solvick • Publisher: Detroit, Mich. : Wayne State University Press, 1988. • ISBN: 081431886X...about the Detroit Light Guard, nothing on the Jackson Greys, other than groups from the Confederacy.
Thank you for the info.
I think 44 states have a RTKBA in their constitution. Two others have something about self-defense. The other 4? Curiously, New Jersey is one state with no RTKBA in their constitution, although self-defense gets a mention.
If you are interested, the link below sheds light on the matter. Once there, click on "The Bill Of Rights & The States"
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FAQs/Default.aspx?Section=17
“Sorry, you are wrong again. We did have the right to carry concealed, as you say it wasn't until 1840 that the events you outlined took place. Up to that time we could carry however we wanted. The second amendment gives the right to keep and bear arms, it doesn't specify concealed or not, therefore we have the right to carry concealed. As to the states not being limited by the bill of rights, I thought that was settled with the 14th amendment and it should apply to the second as well.
On top of that, most states, if not all, have their own right to bear arms amendments in the state constitution. The right to carry implies the right to carry concealed unless otherwise stated in the amendment. Neither your argument or the arguments of 1840 are valid, they simply wanted to override the rights of the people.
If the bill of rights doesn't extend to the states, what was the use of writing them? A slave to the govenment is a slave, whether that government be state or feds.”
Sorry, you are making assumptions based on wishful thinking. I can produce a lot of evidence supporting my position from 2nd amendment debate over ratification to state and federal court cases through about 1870. Prior to 1840, states and local laws regulated the carrying of arms concealed. In 1840 in Aymette v State, a Tennessee state case, a man was being prosecuted for carrying a bowie knife concealed. The court ruled:
“The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon, it being of the character before described as being intended by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of that unqualified character”.
The opinion also noted specifically that the 2nd did not apply to state law. The Court is saying that the citizens could own any arm suitable for the common defense, they just could not carry it if prohibited by the legislature.
Other states came to different conclusions about concealed carry but they all considered the issue one that was based on state law and the state constitution and not the federal one. This particular decision is important for two reasons. First, it is still referenced in current federal decisions, and second, it is absolutely absent any reference to the founders, either state or federal.
As to why have a bill of rights if it does not extend to the states, originally the answer would be to protect state sovereignty and after the 14th, the issue becomes moot as the 14th was designed to incorporate the entire bill of rights into state law.
The problem with the 2nd being incorporated through the 14th is that the second has never, in any court, been construed to include concealed carry. I cannot find a case that applied.
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.