Guns in America and the Supreme Court Ruling

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Ibtl

rainbowbob

You'll probably find that who could or could not vote wasn't assumed but was laid out in the laws of the several states.

Before the afore mentioned amendments, the Constitution said nothing about who could or could not vote. To this day the Constitution does not say who shall vote, only who shall not be prohibited to vote.

Scalia wrote:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

Scalia said nothing along the lines of "common sense". Also note that he included "...and for whatever purpose," in his dissertation. That's "use." The Second Amendment does not protect use of arms, therefore, what he wrote is not inaccurate, but the Second Amendment itself is not in doubt about the fashion in which it protects the right. Government is prohibited to infringe upon it.

The rest will be considered as new cases are brought up - or not at all if Congress repeals its unconstitutional laws, and the several states do the same or are forced to by congress under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5.

Woody

 

[Art Eatman]

CC, I was browsing in a bookstore and picked up a trade-paperback copy. It was retail $24.95, so I didn't buy it; I just skimmed through. What has stuck in my memory is the phrasing about intent, with respect to the "unsound mind" and "ill repute".

It seems to me that no matter what rights are supposedly guaranteed by being written down on a piece of paper, the folks in any community are going to do what they feel necessary to maintain their own security. Nehmiah Nutzoid may have a constitutional right in the absolute sense to own a gun, but folks just flat-out won't let him have it or keep it.

What's implicit in the entire Constitution and BOR is that the citizenry for whom they are intended is composed of rational, intelligent, competent people who are reasonable and prudent.

Unfortunately overly-optimistic.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Art, I've got a copy. I'll dive into it again and see if I can find it.

Woody

 

[ServiceSoon]

If you hunt hard enough in the Anti-Federalist Papers, you'll find that the people who wrote the Bill of Rights and wrote/supported the Second Amendment believed that the right to bear arms did not apply to "...those of unsound mind or of ill repute."

Allowing for the difference in word usage over the centuries, I have to assume they were referring to what we today call "adjudicated nutzoidal" and "felons".

IOW, the Second Amendment was not consdered a free and unfettered right for every person who was upright and breathing.

I used advanced google search to find the word repute or sound mind at www.barefootsworld.net/antifederalist.html and I could not find what you are suggesting.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Art,

Is this it?

From:

The Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of Pennsylvania to their Constituents

December 12, 1787​

Yadda yadda yadda

[After explaining the events leading to the ratifying convention, the minority delegates determined to explain themselves to their constituents.] We entered on the examination of the proposed system of government, and found it to be such as we could not adopt, without, as we conceived, surrendering up your dearest rights. We offered our objections to the convention, and opposed those parts of the plan, which, in our opinion, would be injurious to you, in the best manner we were able; and closed our arguments by offering the following propositions to the convention.

More yadda...

7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up: and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers. ...

Woody