Posted on 11/05/2022 8:50:09 AM PDT by Carriage Hill
Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015005397099&view=1up&seq=7
Re: “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” a report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, compiled by the US Senate 97th Congress, 2nd Session.
Try he link above. It may not be easy to read online, but its downloadable...if all works
“1828 Webster’s Dictionary...
INFRING’ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses...”
And also:
1828 Webster’s Dictionary...
RIGHT, noun
10. Just claim; immunity; privilege. All men have a right to the secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property. We deem the right of trial by jury invaluable, particularly in the case of crimes. Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public.
“So the author would need to define terms as they were understood at the time.
People
keep
bear
arms
infringed”
You left out the term “Right”.
It’s okay to disagree. Otherwise we would just be the conservative equivalent of Democratunderground. I have considered both sides of the argument that if you cannot be trusted with a firearm, you should not be released from prison. But in reality, that isn’t going to happen. So what we have are violent criminals on the street. And we know that they don’t obey laws and they WILL get a gun if they want one. I see banning them from possessing a firearm as a tool to put them back into prison from which they should have never been released in the first place.
Perhaps a compromise, ban only violent ex-cons from owning firearms until they can prove themselves trustworthy. How about that?
Picky, picky, picky...
Cheers….
And Bidet’s brain moves slower than paint drying.
I think the biggest problem is that release from prison is only predicated on time served in many cases. In fact, actual real repentance ought to enter strongly into the picture; like, “Hello, it’s called a penitentiary for a reason, isn’t it?” Someone could spend 20 years in The Slammer and if they’re not repentant letting them out as a horrible idea. So we are in agreement about the broken condition of the system where it comes to deciding who gets released and when. Recidivism rates are high because repentance is almost non-existent, and the system doesn’t even look for it as a condition of release. So, somebody could spend 10 years in prison perfecting the art of crying crocodile tears just so when they get up before the parole board they get out.
Why? This is one of the things I do not get. The only useful purpose of having numbers on firearms if for collectors, so that they'd know when and where a firearm was manufactured. It really isn't any business of the faggots that work for the feral government if a firearm has one or not.
If I were on a jury and this was brought up, I'd laugh out loud.
Which is as it should be. if you are a free man, you should have the rights of a free man. If they aren't safe to be around, they should still be in prison.
The author must not understand that the right to keep and bear arms was necessary to keep their states free from tyrants taking over.
-PJ
Which is why I advocate a period of time to prove you are a changed person and not a danger to society.
yet. it should be.
Well, as I think I understand your perspective, that “period of time” should be DURING incarceration, NOT after release.
It’s a keeper.
Those words are not in the operative clause I quoted.
If the schmuck judge could define the words I noted, he would be able to understand 2A as intended.
But as you say, many game the system to get out early on good behavior. Maybe violent criminals should have to serve every day of their sentence with time added on for bad behavior behind bars.
I don't disagree with what you said, but I believe that the operative phrase is "necessary to the security of a free state."
The second amendment is an individual right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. However, the purpose of that right was foremost (according to the second amendment) to protect the sovereignty of the states.
The "security" of a "free state" meant not just protection from a tyrant but also from the other states.
Alexander Hamilton wrote of this in Federalist #8:
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain...Hamilton foresaw that a militia of the people-at-large would be enough to stop a move by small states to form standing armies, which would stop large states from retaliating with their own, essentially preventing an arms race.The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government...
The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages.
Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World.
The peoples' right to keep and bear arms was necessary to the security of a free state, because it stopped the states from wanting to form their own armies standing in opposition to each other.
-PJ
They all must have serial numbers for tracking/tracing purposes, they are recorded on the Federal Form 4473—or ‘yellow sheet’ at point of sale, new or used. Call a gun shop and ask.
The post is well done, and well taken. But my point was for this judge, Stern, to be able to discern for himself the bounds of a citizens right to possess and carry arms by exploring the simple language of the amendment itself and it’s meaning at the time it was adopted.
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.