I can't see anything controversial about that.
Thread: 2A and what it means
You know awhile back I was reading this book on the amendments and it got me think. We all talk about 2A and most just talk only about 2A as if it is all alone by itself. In fact it is anything but alone. It has 14 other amendments to go along with in. Below is what I came up with and would like everyones thoughts on it.
What was the intent of those who signed the Bill of Rights?? What were the states views?
You know I got reading a book today on the Bill of Rights and it got me thinking on something that was said in it. The item brought to mind was states bill of rights meaning the states versions of the bill of rights as applied to that state. So I started to dig into these some and it goes to show what the state governments who had to ratify the federal bill of rights had to say with regard to the right to keep and bare arms.
Of the 14 states that ratified the Bill of Rights (Federal) 7 of these states had provisions in their own state Bill of Rights that very clearly show that the individual had a right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. 5 of the 7 refer specifically to the individuals defense of self, family or property. The other 2 just say the individual has this right but does not refer to defense but lists it as an individual right not connected to militia use. Those states are listed in bold below since can't colorize the text.
Of the remaining 6 state
New Jersey does not appear to have an amendment for Arms or Militia but Amendment 1 clearly states
Massachusetts also has a similar 1st amendmentand defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property,
Maryland seems to lean towards Militia use as they have no reference to Arms in regards to individuals but then it does not prohibit either so..........among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties;
South Carolina same as Maryland no reference to individual right but I know when I lived in South Carolina the state did pass the right of a home owner to shoot an intruder in defense of their home, person or family so while the founders of Maryland did not enumerate it into their Bill of Rights the state did finally pass law protecting homeowners from even killing in self defense.
Virginia pretty much parrots the federal Bill of Rights saying that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
New York only references Militias but does not refer to arms be it individual or Militia so while their Bill of Rights does not guarantee this right it also does not prohibit
North Carolina pretty much parrots the federal Bill of Rights saying that the people have a right to keep and bear arms.
So of the remaining 7 states 2 while not referring to arms do reference the right of the individual to defend himself. 3 of the states make no reference for or against individuals keeping and bearing arms and the last 2 states parrot the second amendment which does refer to it being the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
So overwhelmingly the states show a strong support of the right belonging to the people not only in relation to Militia since half the states at the time clearly refer to it as an individual right and the others tend to agree even though wording does not say so specifically the written text it also leans towards it being a right.
So it makes no sense why at minimum half the states would have sighed a document that did not agree with their own Bill of Rights.
Below are the state links to the states Bill of Rights and the amendment best suited for the topic based on available amendments. Order is based on the states as they joined the union
2 Pennsylvania§ 20. Right to keep and bear arms.
Section 20. A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
3 New JerseyRight to Bear Arms
Section 21. The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
4 Georgia1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
5 ConnecticutParagraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.
6 MassachusettsSEC. 15. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
7 MarylandArticle CVI. Article I of Part the First of the Constitution is hereby annulled and the following is adopted:-
All people are born free and equal and have certain natural, essential and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness. Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged because of sex, race, color, creed or national origin.
8 South CarolinaArt. 28. That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defence of a free Government.
9 New HampshireSECTION 20. Right to keep and bear arms; armies; military power subordinate to civil authority; how soldiers quartered.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. (1970 (56) 2684; 1971 (57) 315.)
10 Virginia[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
11 New YorkSection 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
12 North CarolinaNo Amendment seems to reference arms be it for personal use to Militia usage.
13 Rhode IslandSec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.
14 VermontSection 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Last edited by Dave1776; 03-07-2014 at 03:59 PM.
I can't see anything controversial about that.
Yeah while reading the book it just got me wondering why there is so much talk about 2A but not much talk about what the states felt as it just helps strengthen the argument of 2A that it is individual right not merely a militia connection
Last edited by Gallowmere; 03-12-2014 at 05:54 PM.
No matter how carefully a contract was constructed to protect your rights, or how much blood was spent to buy it, if you don't guard your interests and demand adherence to the terms, don't exercise your rights, or if the other party to the contract becomes so strong and influential as to become immune to suits and pressures to comply with the contract, the contract is in effect nullified.
We need to start electing ourselves onto the board of the other party to the contract. I wonder if electing a joe-blow who will vote no for the duration of his term would be an improvement over the traitors in office nowadays.
Last edited by ChristCrusader; 03-13-2014 at 01:39 PM.
*I am not a lawyer. Nothing from me shall be construed as a magic cloak of legal advice. It's ultimately your tucas that's on the line. Keep examining the law anyway. The gov't, made up of people like us, is supposed to work for us, not against us. Let's find, correct, and avoid the wrongs before they're actively used against us, or we become innocently trapped by them. We're to be the masters. Let's vigilantly keep tabs on our servants who seek to rule us.
I think the 2A must be read in light of the document that preceded the Constitution which is the Declaration of Independence:
I believe that the 2A was written to attempt to guarantee that the citizens maintained the ability to fulfill their rights and duties as stated in the Declaration of Independence.That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
I believe the "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment refers to a group of citizens who are "regulated" towards a single purpose and goal. Regulated in no way refers to government restrictions on who can carry what firearms and where. Regulated, in this context, I believe, means "to make useful for a specific purpose". The air in a firefighter's or diver's air tank cannot be used for it's specific purpose until it is regulated to the proper pressure to beathe. 1 or 2 million armed citizens going in 1 or 2 million different directions cannot accomplish the necessary purpose which follows next in the 2A. Only when those 1 or 2 armed citizens are "regulated" towards the common goal can they hope to accomplish it.
"being necessary to the security of the free state" - There is no "enemey" specified. In fact, the military oath of enlistment states "to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I believe this is 100% in line with the duty of the citizens expressed in the Declaration of Indepence.
The remainder - "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" means that the government should not have the authority to regulate the right of the people to keep and bear arms because that would be 100% contrary to the necessity of a well regulated militia needed to maintain the security of the free state.
"Virginia pretty much parrots the federal Bill of Rights saying that the people have a right to keep and bear arms."
You've got this backwards. The federal Bill of Rights was written from the Virginia Constitution at the urging of George Mason and Patrick Henry. The Second Amendment was drafted from Section 13 of that document.
In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.
U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)