What Sort of Restrictions Should the 2A Have?

[eye95]

I think it can be safely assumed that the founders had no concept of wmd's as we know them today. Furthermore, I believe their intention was to protect the right to maintain small arms and weapons of insurrection as they could forsee. For example, handguns, rifles, shotguns and edged weapons. Whether they intended for individuals to own cannon and shot for example, I rather doubt simply for the reason that this would be rather impractical for the common man, most of us wouldn't have much practical use for artillery. This would fall under the " power to raise an army" clause in my opinion. However, as it happens I know a gentleman who makes 12lb smooth bore cannons that work.

While no one probably conceived of making individual cannon ownership unlawful, I don't doubt that the Founders would have seen such as constitutional.

Being that a cannon is a crew-served weapon, and pretty hard to bear, it just doesn't make sense with a plain-reading of the 2A as an individual right to keep and BEAR arms. Madison even gave us insight to what they meant when he stated that invaders would be given pause by know that they'd face "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands."

 

[PT111]

Many of the cannons used in the revolutionary war were privately owned so yes I absolutely think that the full intention of the writers of 2A meant to include such weapons. 2A was as much about the people being able to repel the government of the people as is was a foreign government or a bear attack while traveling. After much reading and thought on this while trying to place it in the context of the 1780's I have come to the conclusion that 2A was not about personal protection or the right to carry a pistol as much as it was for the people to be armed as a military unit.

How does that play with our right to walk around with a weapon on our side. I am not sure if the thought of that was even a part of 2A as is was so much a given to the writers at that time that they could not concieve of it being restricted for any reason other than by the government (primarily King or Monarch) to prevent insurrection which was the basis for 2A. It was also a larger part of the arguement against a standing army.

In Jefferson's quote that no man should be barred the use of arms he later added on his own lands or tenants. All of this together tells me that there is a time and place for absolutely no restrictions yet there are times and places that even the writers of 2A would have made restrictions themselves. Now where and when are those restrictions?

I believe that the restriction lies somewhere between the restrictions set down by the DC government where the only place you could have a gun is in your house locked up and not available, and that a 3rd grader being able to carry a suitcase nuke with him to school for show and tell. As for a person at their home or on their property Ido not think that there should be any restrictions. Now should a person be allowed to have nuke weapons in their den or even biological weapons. I think that they should be legal but since the likelyhood of it causing problems off of their property then there may be more to it than running down to the Bait and Tackle shop and picking one up. This is the same as a back yard firing range, you need to have either a back stop or own lots of land.

As for when one steps off of their property I have a lot of mixed feelings about this and am not sure where I stand. I am not for any 12 year old to be able to walk down town any time he wishes with a M-16 across his shoulder. With the right to bear arms comes the responsibility. I don't think that 2A is all inclusive for all weapons for any time, place or person. I think that some restrictions are legal and were expected by the writers of 2A. However I do think that our laws are truly in violation of 2A and in addition I have never found the part of 2A that says OC is OK but CC is not. It says bear arms and doesn't say how. To say that one is preferred over the other is like saying that 2A only covers shotguns.

 

[NRAMARINE]

While no one probably conceived of making individual cannon ownership unlawful, I don't doubt that the Founders would have seen such as constitutional.

Being that a cannon is a crew-served weapon, and pretty hard to bear, it just doesn't make sense with a plain-reading of the 2A as an individual right to keep and BEAR arms. Madison even gave us insight to what they meant when he stated that invaders would be given pause by know that they'd face "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands."

I agree that they did not intend to make them unlawful. I simply meant that small arms (hand held, long guns, blades etc,) was what they were primarily protect. I only meant to say it was probably not a consideration due primarily to the cost and unwieldly nature of such a weapon. Anyone who chooses however to own such a weapon, it would be legal, or more correctly, constitutional.

 

[eye95]

I agree that they did not intend to make them unlawful. I simply meant that small arms (hand held, long guns, blades etc,) was what they were primarily protect. I only meant to say it was probably not a consideration due primarily to the cost and unwieldly nature of such a weapon. Anyone who chooses however to own such a weapon, it would be legal, or more correctly, constitutional.

Yeah, a lot of things never need to be made unlawful because it ain't worth doing. Unfortunately, some clown eventually does it, and a law becomes necessary.

 

[NRAMARINE]

Yeah, a lot of things never need to be made unlawful because it ain't worth doing. Unfortunately, some clown eventually does it, and a law becomes necessary.

True, for example, the Governor here in La. just had to outlaw many types of bath salts because some assclowns were snorting them and getting high, I think they were even smoking the stuff.

 

[GLOCK21GB]

I would like to see the evidence that the framers drew a line as to what arms they were referring to. I have studied this subject extensively and have not seen any evidence that a line was drawn at all. Some on this forum and SCOTUS keep insisting that a line was drawn as to the type of weapons that 2A was referring to. I say this is in theory only, with no proof to back it up.

SHOW ME YOUR PROOF

THIS, I AGREE WITH 100% . Right to keep and bear arms. (( means ALL ARMS ))

 

[eye95]

The history of the right, which dates back to the Magna Carta and before, has always been about hand-carried (borne) arms. It started out as explicitly swords and knives, then bows-and-arrows, and then firearms. It never included trebuchets. It doesn't include cannons.

The context in which the 2A was written, that all able-bodied men belonged to a militia, combined with the laws of the time that described the arms a man would bring with him when he reported for the militia, further demonstrates that the amendment that the arms being discussed were knives and hand-carried (borne) firearms.

Madison spoke of the nation being defended by "a militia amounting to near a half a million citizens with arms in their hands."

That should be enough for anyone with an open mind to say, "hmmmmm..." Research it folks. You'd be amazed how much stuff is out there on the subject. Yeah, there are a lot of people putting forth the argument that the 2A includes nukes (the logical conclusion of the belief that the 2A means all arms), but the only support for that argument is the assumption that "arms" means "all arms." The flip-side has lots of quotes from the Founders, like the one I provided above, and historical context for the enumerated right (which goes back many hundreds of years prior to the 2A) that give insight into which arms the Founders were talking about.

It's a fun endeavor, with lots of reading, if you want to put forth the effort. Otherwise, that's OK too.

 

[bigdaddy1]

It doesn't include cannons.

I have to disagree with you on this point, cannons were at the time part of the arsenal available to the people and if they intended them to be excluded they would have added that exclusion to the amendment when written. In fact as no government of the people was in place during the revolution, all arms used were privately owned, including cannons.

 

[NRAMARINE]

I have to disagree with you on this point, cannons were at the time part of the arsenal available to the people and if they intended them to be excluded they would have added that exclusion to the amendment when written. In fact as no government of the people was in place during the revolution, all arms used were privately owned, including cannons.

Good point.

 

[eye95]

I have to disagree with you on this point, cannons were at the time part of the arsenal available to the people and if they intended them to be excluded they would have added that exclusion to the amendment when written. In fact as no government of the people was in place during the revolution, all arms used were privately owned, including cannons.

Not necessarily. A cannon cannot be borne, therefore there can be no right to bear it, whether it is explicitly stated in the 2A or not. Reasonable people can write a provision that does not explicitly exclude that which the context clearly excludes.

 

[bigdaddy1]

Not necessarily. A cannon cannot be borne, therefore there can be no right to bear it, whether it is explicitly stated in the 2A or not. Reasonable people can write a provision that does not explicitly exclude that which the context clearly excludes.

The second amendment states "the right to KEEP and bear arms". I don't think anyone is particularly interested in or specifically talking about CARRYING a cannon, but the right to own said weapon. In fact it is legal to own a cannon in most states, firing such a weapon may be frowned upon but you can own one. I don't think they would allow a Howitzer in your front yard, but then again....

 

[eye95]

The second amendment states "the right to KEEP and bear arms". I don't think anyone is particularly interested in or specifically talking about CARRYING a cannon, but the right to own said weapon. In fact it is legal to own a cannon in most states, firing such a weapon may be frowned upon but you can own one. I don't think they would allow a Howitzer in your front yard, but then again....

By the enumerated right being a right to keep AND bear, it is clear that they are talking about arms that can be kept AND borne--especially when you consider the history of the right, which predates the Constitution, being all about hand-held individual arms (swords, bows an arrows, and early firearms).

 

[P229Sig357DAK]

People need to stop "interpreting" the constitution for their own ends and just read

Supreme Court ruling: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any Law that is repugnant to the Constitution is Null and Void of Law. Marbury Vs. Madison 5 US 137

Supreme Court Ruling not yet overturned thus the Supreme Law of the Land;
“ A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution. No State shall convert a Liberty into a priviledge, License it, and attach a fee to it. Murdock Vs. Pennsylvania 319 US 105

Supreme Court ruling not overturned is Supreme law of the land;
“If a State converts a Liberty into a Priviledge, the Citizen can engage in the right with impunity. Shuttlesworth Vs. Birmingham 373 US 262

Supreme Court Ruling; “ If you have relied on prior decisions of the Supreme Court, You have a perfect defense for willfulness.” US Vs Bishop 412 US 346

Supreme Court Ruling; “An Unconstitutional act is not a law; It confers no rights; it imposes no duties; It affords no protection; It creates no office; It is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it has never been passed.” Norton Vs. Shelby County 118 US 425

Supreme Court Ruling; “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” US Vs. Miller 230 F2d 486

Supreme Court Ruling; “ Constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. The Court is to protect against any encroachment of a Constitutionally secured Liberty.” Boyd Vs. US 116 US 616

Supreme Court Ruling; “ Officers of the court have no immunity from liability when violating a Constitutional right and may be held personally liable for damages under 42 U.S.C.A., 1983; For they are deemed to know the law. Knowing that they will be liable for all injurious conduct creates incentive for officials to err on the side of protecting citizens Constitutional rights.” Owens Vs. Independence 445 US 621, 100 SCT 1398
Main Vs. Thiboutot 448 US 1, 100 SCT 2502
Hafer Vs. Melo 502 US 21, (1991)

 

[eye95]

The problem with all of that is the first ruling that you cite. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the authority to state what is or is not "constitutional." That ruling and every on that followed was an "interpretation" of the Constitution--exactly what you decry.

That being said, I agree with the principle set forth in Marbury v. Madison. Since the Supreme Court settles differences between the States, between States and citizens of other States, and cases to which the feds are a party, it will naturally have to make decisions as to what the Constitutions says and means. Of course, that is an "interpretation."

The Supreme Court just doesn't always do it well.

What the Constitution means is also natural fodder for debate among us ordinary folk. As much as possible, we should rely on the actual wording. However, words are not concrete. They are, by nature, abstract. Since we cannot possibly envision abstractions in exactly the same way as each other, to gain as full an understanding as possible, we need to try to understand the words as used in the day and considering the historical context of those who penned those words by reading the writings of the authors and learning about the history that they learned and that they lived.

We should try for plain meaning--the plain meaning that was intended by those who wrote the Constitution.