***Shifa further contends, “The Second Amendment does not say anywhere that each individual has the right to bear arms and exclusively states that this right pertains to militias.***
Dred Scott vs Sanford.
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.
IN the Fourth Amendment it states; “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” . I wonder what group of people the Fourth Amendment it referring to.
The Fifth Amendment uses the word person twice but it is also referring to criminal prosecution and I don’t believe at the time trying a group of persons would have been thought of.
The Sixth Amendment uses personal pronouns; “to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” No doubt we’re talking individual rights here.
The Ninth Amendment short and sweet: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” But which group of people are they referring to?
The Tenth Amendment is also beautifully short; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” But again one has to guess what group of people the founders were referring to.
It should be obvious to any intelligent reader that in every other amendment in the Bill of Rights than the Second that the word People refers to any one of the many individuals that make up the People that constitute the citizens of the sovereign States that make up the United States.
The anti-gun nut cases cling to those two subordinate clauses “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” like a drowning man clings to stray bit of driftwood. But they are subordenate clauses that can be dropped from the sentence without altering the meaning of the sentence. Which when done leaves; “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Everywhere else in the Bill of Rights the word “People” obviously means individuals. I can’t imagine that the founders would be consistent in their mean everywhere else but the Second Amendment.
Very interesting. TYVM for that.
Not let me see if I understand it......
So Negroes can “keep” (posess) and “carry” (have on their person) arms (guns) ANYWHERE they went (into stores, across state lines, and even in their homes!)
Right?
I didn’t see any mention of permits? I didn’t see where it excluded so-called assault weapons? I didn’t see that they had to belong to a militia?
If only Whites also had such a ruling, oh well, discrimination is everywhere /sarc