Right to bear arms clearly delineated, law professor says

Blade ^ | February 14, 2003 | BLADE STAFF WRITER

[ZULU]

The meaning of the Second Amendment is crystal clear, said Nelson Lund, a law professor at George Mason University school of law in Fairfax, Va.

"In fact, for over a hundred years after the amendment was adopted, there was no controversy about its meaning," Mr. Lund said yesterday during a taping of The Editors television program. "Everyone who wrote seriously about it agreed that it protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, just like the individual rights in the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment."

[Stat-boy]

S 2.5 wrote:

"The word "regulated" was defined in Webster's dictionary at the time as dealing with instuments such as clocks. The barrels on a double barreled shotgun were supposed to be "regulated". I tried to find Webster's definition and haven't found it yet. I'm still looking."


Here is a good article by David Kopel called "The 2A during the 19th Century":

http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/19thcentury.htm


Reference to the Webster dictionary is found in Section E(6); it's easier to find it by looking for footnote 172.

Enjoy!!

[Travis McGee]

Skirmishing fine, guerrilla warfare fine but pitched battles were a disaster...

That's great, because in any modern 2A context there will be no "pitched battles", only skirmishing and guerrilla warfare.

[tpaine]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - is an explanation, he said, of why an individual's right was being protected in what follows, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes and though some wish it was not written that way I have come to the belief that makes sense if only it would be used more
Because it clearly shows that the framers FEARED THE OVERBEARANCE of a national government and that the 2nd amendment was a bulwark against it

It was also intended to limit the ablity of the states to over-regulate the right.

Clearly they were worried about the NATIONAL GOVERNMENT taking away the STATES POWERS AND RIGHTS I think the defenders of the 2nd Amendment should emphasis this in their arguments.

Unfortunately, the gunngrabbers in some states [CA, notably] are using the 'states rights' position to 'regulate' away, - to prohibit, - certain types of guns.

Amazingly enough, there are even a few dozen very vocal FReekers that insist that states can prohibit the RKBA's.

[Jhoffa_]

"SHALL NOT be infringed..

All I need to know.

[Jhoffa_]

...vocal FReekers that insist that states can prohibit the RKBA's.

What, exactly.. (and be specific) is an "RKBA" ?

I see this all over the place and I have no idea what it refers to.

[Jason_b]

RKBA=Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

"...vocal FReekers that insist that states can prohibit the RKBA's."

Can they logically argue it? No. They're a bunch of elitists who are wrong but try to cow the people anyway. Don't fall for it.

A well-regulated militia...stop. Militias are of the state. The governor can call out the militia. Continue...being necessary to the security of a free state...stop. The concern is about the state remaining free. Continue...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Conclusions:
1. Militias are OK.
2. Militias help keep the state free, especially if they are well run or at least can get their act together.
3. A militia is not a militia if the people making up its membership are not armed...duh!
4. The people need to stay armed.
5. No one should try to interfere with the ability of the people to arm themselves.

From my viewpoint, the 2nd amendment is speaking to everyone, state, federal; everyone! Also consider many states have their own version of the 2nd Amendment that predates the 1787 one. It is nonsense to think states have the right to prohibit arms, because that would make it impossible to have a militia. And the Bill of Rights suggests that militias are not only ok, but a desirable thing. Why would any state have the right to prohibit its own militia?

The 2nd Amendment not only protects the God given right to keep and bear arms, it protects the idea that within every state, there IS a militia, it has the right to exist, and it has the right to be armed.

[Jhoffa_]

Ahhhh..

I have been curious about this acronym..

Thank you..

[xm177e2]

The preface - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" - is an explanation, he said, of why an individual’s right was being protected in what follows, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

He's exactly right.

At the time, firearms ownership allowed the government to quickly call up a militia, which was necessary to our security.

In current times, we don't need private citizens to bring their guns with them when they come to military service--but individual firearms ownership promotes marksmanship and knowledge about weapons handling, which is useful to our military. The 2nd Amendment still serves the same purpose to the government (and that doesn't even get into the purpose it serves individuals, of allowing them to be secure in their homes).

[Ramius]

That, and considering that about half of the 101 would be on one side, and half on the other... :-)

[Shooter 2.5]

When the movie, The Patriot, came out, there were threads that descibed the Southern actions with the help of the Militia. I'm not an expert of the Revolution but the American Heritage book on the Revolutionary War says this about the Southern Campaigns:

"On October 7, They were attacked at King's Mountain by what Ferguson called "Back Water men... a set of mongrels. The rugged pioneers killed Ferguson and knocked out 80 percent of his command.

The guerrilla activities of the rebels hurt the enemy badly. Raiders drifted out of dismal swamps to strike at isolated outposts, gobble up supply trains, and wreck Tory formations. This constant hit and run warfare sapped British strength by pinning down hundreds of regular troops. Andrew Pickens, Thomas Sumpter and Francis Marion were the prominent southern Partison leaders......The outstanding contribution of these irregulars to ultimate American victory was in snapping up, one by one the British posts which Cornwallis had so carefully established in Southern Carolina."

For more about the contribution of the militias, read about the Ohio Indian Wars.

If anything, the rifles of the militia were useless in formation warfare. Too slow to load but accurate at hundreds of yards instead of fifty yards.

Washington's assessment of the Rifleman was not because they weren't any good at their craft. It was because he couldn't control them. Find the quote as to what he said about them.

[Shooter 2.5]

Thank you.

[Travis McGee]

I just saw the neon RKBA light go on over your head!

[Jhoffa_]

Hey man.. go easy on me here.

I'm tryin to learn..

[Jhoffa_]

RKBA BUMP!

[Black Agnes]

He forgets Francis Marion. Bunch of my ancestors fought with the swamp fox.

[justshutupandtakeit]

While the South was not utterly pacified it was under British control after Cornwallis went there. There were some Continental victories but the area was not able to field sufficient forces to do anything but skirmish and hit and run. The Revolutionary War was primarily fought in the North partially because the Slave holders would not go far from their holdings for fear of slave revolts or the British taking them (like Jefferson's.) For this reason Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens (S.C.) proposed arming slaves who could earn their freedom by serving.

The fact that Cornwallis's posts were taken actually proves my point. He easily conquered the area. Then moved his attention elsewhere and put the bulk of his forces in Virginia where Washington trapped them. Tarleton's excesses turned public opinion against the British after he left. Before that there was considerable Loyalist support and strong Loyalist militias in the western areas of the South.

An uncontrollable military force is often worse than useless and the tendency of the militia to flee from disciplined forces made them often useless to Washington. As I said their only value was guerrilla activity and ambuses of small forces. Washington won the war because he trained an actual army on the run through defeat after defeat. Of course, the Swamp Fox is the most noteworthy Southern leader. He was a guerrilla leader. Most of the militia did not have the long rifles of Kentucky and Pennsylvania. Though they were the best rifle of the day.

I am not speaking of the use of militia in Indian wars. There they were fighting a technologically backward people with no ability to fight defensively.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It's worked great for the Taliban hasn't it?

[Travis McGee]

Great comparison!

(NOT!)

[justshutupandtakeit]

The Taliban was a militia. It met a real army and is no more. The comparision is exact.

[Shooter 2.5]

"Militias were terrible military forces and virtually useless in the Revolutionary War and caused Washington so much grief he considered them irrelevent.

This is your quote that started this discussion. See if you can find a history book that backs that premise.

The death of Ferguson and eighty per cent of his command was an act far from "virtually useless". By the way, the Ferguson's death directly changed the course of firearms for the next 60 years until the invention of the Hall carbine.