Guns were more regulated in the 20s & 30s than today

[DeepSouth]

At least according a TIME article I read today, before you dismiss them as idiots (as I did) read the article, while I still disagree I do see the point they made.
If nothing else I got reminded that we didn't just begin the battle to keep our right to bear arms, I was also reminded that "let the states decide" is sometimes a bad idea, hence the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The first significant federal law aimed at curtailing gun violence, the National Firearms Act of 1934, enacted a series of measures aimed mostly at stemming the spread of ever-more destructive weapons into the hands of criminals at a time of spiraling gangland violence. Chief among the weapons and accessories it regulated were sawed-off shotguns (defined as those having a barrel shorter than 18 inches), machine guns, and silencers.

Not only did states move to restrict fully automatic weapons – those that fire a continuous stream of bullets when the trigger is depressed – but also semi-automatic weapons that fire without reloading and with each pull of the trigger. At least seven, and as many as ten states enacted legislation that in various ways sought to restrict such weapons. Sometimes, fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons were treated in the same way.

Full Article HERE

 

[JRH6856]

I was also reminded that "let the states decide" is sometimes a bad idea, hence the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Except that the Consititution and Bill of Rights originally served to let the states decide on matters within the state's borders. Slavey showed that is sometimes as bad idea, hence the 13th and 14th amendments.

 

[Ohen Cepel]

I do not trust Time to tell the truth on anything these days.

So, a few states may have had a few restrictions (don't know without doing a lot of research, but what he mostly cited were really magazine limits.

One could still mail order just about anything and the federal laws were much more lax. They want things there way and will lie to make them so.

 

[DeepSouth]

Except that the Consititution and Bill of Rights originally served to let the states decide on matters within the state's borders. Slavey showed that is sometimes as bad idea, hence the 13th and 14th amendments.

I'm sorry, that's not correct. The second amendment does not say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall only be infringed on the state level"

To my knowledge (which is admittedly limited) other than the 3/5's agreement slavery wasn't really addressed in the founding documents.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...I was also reminded that "let the states decide" is sometimes a bad idea, hence the Constitution and Bill of Rights. ...

Not quite.

1. The Constitution primarily describes the workings of the federal government, such as the powers, duties and limitations of the various branches of the federal government. It is, in effect, the executive summary of the instruction manual for operating the federal government.
   
   
2. The Constitution covers the States only insofar as it includes provisions relating to the relationship between the federal government and the States, for example Article VI, Clause 2:

   This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

   
   See also Article IV, dealing with, among other things, the extradition of fugitives who flee across state lines and the admission of new States into the Union, and Article V relating to amendment of the Constitution and the roles of States in that process.
   
   
3. The Bill of Rights was added by amendment to the Constitution after the Constitution was ratified. It was intended to protect certain enumerated rights against action by the federal government. And the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)). Beginning at the end of the 19th Century the courts finally started holding States, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (adopted in 1868), to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
   
   
4. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (Supreme Court, 1876). the Court held, among other things, that the Second Amendment did not apply to the States. It was only in 2010 in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (Supreme Court, 2010) that the rights described by the Second Amendment were applied to the States.

 

[DeepSouth]

So I have to ask, what founding document gives states the right restrict arms or speech?

 

[Frank Ettin]

So I have to ask, what founding document gives states the right restrict arms or speech?

Why does there need to be some sort of a founding document to do that?

States are sovereign, political entities. At the time of the founding of our nation each State or Commonwealth effectively ceded some measure of sovereignty to join with the others to become the United States. How much sovereignty each would cede was a central issue in hashing out the Constitution.

A fundamental attribute of government is what's known as police power:

The inherent authority of a government to impose restrictions on private rights for the sake of public welfare, order, and security.

The authority of States/Commonwealths is acknowledged (not conferred) by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Each State/Commonwealth has its own constitution as well. And since in the United States each State or Commonwealth has its own government in the form of a representative democracy, the people in each have the opportunity to influence what laws are adopted and how they are implemented.

Of course since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and as the doctrine evolved of applying the Bill of Rights to the States through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, that is yet another limiting factor on the exercise by States of their police power.

 

[Leanwolf]

Time Magazine has been extremely anti-guns and anti-Second Amendment for as long as I can remember and I'm talking about at least 45 years. Their crusade, based on lies, half-lies, innuendo, and cooked statistics, has been incessant, then and now.

I would not believe anything I read in Time Magazine.

L.W.

 

[Jim Watson]

The publisher of Time Magazine once said that gun control was "too important" for straight reportage. They would publish in support of restriction.

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

Frank: How do you reconcile the Tenth Amendment's language with your statement that the rights (and I would add limits) contained in the Bill of Rights are a multiple choice item of the individual state? I know that you are an attorney and to you Supreme Court decisions are where you live, but taking the Tenth at face value (as would most humans capable of independent thought) would surmise that the right to own and bear arms is delegated to the people exclusively by the Second Amendment so is beyond the realm of individual states. In my opinion, your position would allow any state to void any of other Amendments that some authority deems dangerous to their existence. Substitute the Fourth or Fifth for the Second and then tell me that the individual states can pick and choose which Amendments they wish to follow. I believe the Bill of Rights is limited to "God given rights" which are rights that every person should have as an individual because they do not cost any other individual anything. We can assemble, worship, speak, defend ourselves, testify in our own defense, and be secure in our property without obligating any other individual to pay for these services. If you believe obligating someone else to pay for my rights as they do with the Fourth Amendment by providing legal representation then they should also provide weapons to those who are unable to afford them in support of the Second Amendment.........D)

 

[Sol]

Not reading to give them clicks.

Even if guns were more "regulated" in the 20s and 30s, wasn't there proportionatley more crime back then?

If there was more (gun) crime, their entire article is baloney and at this particular junction, is nothing more than propaganda peddling.

 

[mboylan]

Firearms and ammunition were generally more restricted in the late 60s to mid 80s than they are today. However, attitudes were much different.

All handgun ammo sales were recorded in a bound book. Mail order sales of handgun ammo were very illegal. Driving armed through several anti-gun states could send you to prison for a very long time. Concealed carry was pretty much illegal everywhere. Several cities required difficult to obtain permits to own a handgun. However, people didn't bat an eye at kids riding their bikes with 22s strapped to their backs.

As far as arms rights go, it's always been where to draw the line. Do you draw the line at nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, high explosives, etc? Right now the line is drawn at automatic weapons, aside from about 170,000 grandfathered ones. There were certainly carry restrictions in some towns during the 19th century. The debate is not new.

 

[barnbwt]

"Why does there need to be some sort of a founding document to do that?"
The concept of 'constitutional republic,' I'm guessing? +1 on the 10th amendment (coupled with the fact that most states have some equivalent of the 1st amendment and are themselves constitutional republics)

I would submit that guns were absolutely more restricted way back when, simply because there was a good chance you would be beaten/murdered by various authorities (legal or otherwise) were you found with a gun and of the wrong racial or political persuasion. Tammany was a very effective and ruthless enforcement mechanism, and every large city had an equivalent way back when.

Nowadays, thanks to modern communications and better education, oppressive authorities at least have to abide by oppressive laws to keep up appearances.

TCB

 

[DeepSouth]

Why does there need to be some sort of a founding document to do that?

Because that's what I brought up the OP, and thats what started the whole debate. It is my belief that the founding documents essentially forbade states to restrict some rights. For instance, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion, ect. ect. Now anything not specifically protected, yes, that's what the 10th amendment is for.

Supreme court rulings can change like the wind, when the Justices themselves disagree how are we to conclude that they know what they're talking about?
I fully believe the Supreme Court was the biggest mistake the founders made.
Even Jefferson recognized their abuse before he died, did he not?



BTW:
I agree TIME isn't to be trusted on 2A issues, which is one of the reasons the arrival caught my attention. I didn't find it to be particularly anti or pro 2A. With that said, I can't honestly say if it was factually correct or not. I did assume it is, but as others have pointed out, I shouldn't make that assumption.

 

[JRH6856]

Because that's what I brought up the OP, and thats what started the whole debate. It is my belief that the founding documents essentially forbade states to restrict some rights. For instance, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion, ect. ect. Now anything not specifically protected, yes, that's what the 10th amendment is for.

Before the Constition, we had the Articles of Confederaion. This was a document describing an agreement between the states creating a government to resolve disputes between the states and conduct foreign affairs as their joint representive.

Without detailing the failures, this created a weak and somewhat unworkable government with little power and authority to make and enforce its own law.

A convention was called to revise the Articles, but instead, the representatives to the convention drafted a Constitution. They did it not as state representatives, but--as the Preamble states--in the name of The People.

In the Constitution, The People lay out what powers and responsibilities and authority the federal government may have in relation to the states. There was never any thought by the framers (principle author was James Madison) that the federal government threatened the rights of the people or that the rights of the people in relation to the federal government needed to delineated. They understood that federal government governend the states. The state governments governed the people and that was not a matte of federal concern.

Therefore, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights as amended, only addressed the powers and authority of the federal government. There was no thought at the time of the restrictions placed on the federal government extended inside the borders of any state.

James Madison eventually proposed a Bill of Rights as a compromise to gain ratification. He thought it was superfluous as the government created by the Constitution, in his mind, did not touch the people within the states. Others were concerned that the federal govenment might overreach its limited authority unless it was clearly restricted. Thuse they demanded a Bill of Rights to impose those limitation on the federal government The 10th Amendment reiterated that any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states were reserved to the states or to the people. None of the restrictions in the Bill of Rights applied to the states, and they certainly did not delegate rights to the people which the people already held under state constitutions.

As Frank explained, the 14th Amendment changed this arrangement and allowed the Bill of Rights to be incorporated against the states as well. This has been done selectively and in my mind, somewhat inconsistantly.

 

[HB]

Firearms and ammunition were generally more restricted in the late 60s to mid 80s than they are today. However, attitudes were much different.

All handgun ammo sales were recorded in a bound book. Mail order sales of handgun ammo were very illegal. Driving armed through several anti-gun states could send you to prison for a very long time. Concealed carry was pretty much illegal everywhere. Several cities required difficult to obtain permits to own a handgun. However, people didn't bat an eye at kids riding their bikes with 22s strapped to their backs.

As far as arms rights go, it's always been where to draw the line. Do you draw the line at nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, high explosives, etc? Right now the line is drawn at automatic weapons, aside from about 170,000 grandfathered ones. There were certainly carry restrictions in some towns during the 19th century. The debate is not new.

I think this post hits the nail on the head. Its hard to compare laws today compared to laws in the past but attitudes have changed greatly.

When my father was growing up everybody had a shotgun and hunted small game. It was completely normal. Now hunting is a little weird and everybody owns an AR-15. I think people in 1950 would be absolutely shocked with the amount of weapons and ammunition people own today.

But hey, I like shotguns and ARs
As long as we educate non-gunners and increase the training of those who do own guns, we can live in a world where we can exercise our 2A rights with minimal negative side affects.
HB

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank: How do you reconcile the Tenth Amendment's language with your statement that the rights (and I would add limits) contained in the Bill of Rights are a multiple choice item of the individual state?...

I don't have to reconcile anything. I've described reality.

...taking the Tenth at face value (as would most humans capable of independent thought) would surmise that the right to own and bear arms is delegated to the people exclusively by the Second Amendment so is beyond the realm of individual states....

It is what it is. You're free of course to believe in your fantasies.

....In my opinion, your position would allow any state to void any of other Amendments that some authority deems dangerous to their existence. Substitute the Fourth or Fifth for the Second and then tell me that the individual states can pick and choose which Amendments they wish to follow...

Who cares what your opinion is? What impact does your opinion have on real life?

Some people understand reality to be what actually happens in the world. Others, like you, seem to confuse reality with what goes on in your head.

....It is my belief that the founding documents essentially forbade states to restrict some rights. For instance, freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, freedom of religion, ect. ect....

But, as I've explained, your belief is not correct. What you believe is not the way things actually are.

....I fully believe the Supreme Court was the biggest mistake the founders made....

Nonetheless, the Founders did provide for the Supreme Court in the Constitution. See Article III, Sections 1 and 2:

Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.​

Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;...​

Again, it seems that some people understand reality to be what goes on in the world, while others seem to confuse reality with what goes on in their heads. It's been my observation that the former seem to be better at effectively getting along in the worldthan the latter.

 

[JSH1]

Firearms and ammunition were generally more restricted in the late 60s to mid 80s than they are today. However, attitudes were much different.

All handgun ammo sales were recorded in a bound book. Mail order sales of handgun ammo were very illegal. Driving armed through several anti-gun states could send you to prison for a very long time. Concealed carry was pretty much illegal everywhere. Several cities required difficult to obtain permits to own a handgun. However, people didn't bat an eye at kids riding their bikes with 22s strapped to their backs.

As far as arms rights go, it's always been where to draw the line. Do you draw the line at nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, high explosives, etc? Right now the line is drawn at automatic weapons, aside from about 170,000 grandfathered ones. There were certainly carry restrictions in some towns during the 19th century. The debate is not new.

Yes, things have really changed since I was a boy in the 1980's.

The article talks about states banning automatic firearms and some states banning semi-automatic firearms with more than an arbitrary number of rounds in the magazine. (South Dakota had a magazine limit of 5) This was done in the 20's and 30's in response to the greatly increased violence caused by prohibition. More states had magazine limits by the end of the 1930's than do today.

It doesn't talk about concealed carry but that is one of the biggest changes of the last 20 years. States and cities started banning concealed carry in the early 1800's and continued until it was banned almost everywhere. Today we have concealed carry with a permit in all 50 states and without a permit is some states.

Today is a pretty good time to be a gun enthusiast!

 

[RPRNY]

The Time article, unsurprisingly, evidences profound ignorance, whether willfully obfuscatory (likely) or just plain stupid (possible). In virtually each citation of a law that purportedly "banned" semi-automatic firearms in the author's view, he ignored the grammar of "that fires semi automatically...AND that is capable of xxx shots without reloading". In other words. Only the combination of semi automatic and what at the time were ultra high capacity magazines effectively fitted only to one specific automatic weapon were banned. In some states.

This was the era of the Thompson sub machine gun and the drum magazine. And while today's media fixation with the AR 15 is similar, unlike today there actually was a significant volume of crime committed with the Tommy gun and police were generally poorly trained and often out gunned (giving rise to the fabulous 38 Super). The laws quoted, with the exception of a few eastern Communist states, banned automatic weapons and semi autos with 16+ capacity magazines, which was specifically aimed at the drum magazine.

So, if the author had been honest, he would have written that "in the 1920s and 30s, some states banned machine guns and drum magazines." Hardly eye catching or a driver of the Liberal narrative though...

 

[.338-06]

So, in New York in the 1920's you could buy a Thompson but not pistol without a permit (look up Sullivan + guns). Part of that '10 states' crap. For the thirty years after NFA no license was needed to sell guns, no forms, no age restrictions to buy, Hell you could buy anti-tank weapons through the mail. In the free states. All of that gone after '68. So, when were things more restrictive? Social Justice Warriors lie, all the time and the media is chock full of them.

 

[DeepSouth]

But, as I've explained, your belief is not correct. What you believe is not the way things actually are.

This is where we disagree, yes you've explained it but you haven't explained it using founding documents, writings from the founding fathers, recorded debates from independence hall, nor anything involved in the founding of the country. You've explained it using court cases that I'd argue go against the founding intent.

I'm am also aware that what I believe is not the way things are, we as a country are so far from the constitutional republic that at this point most founding documents are nearly irrelevant. Now the "legislative branch" is making about 1/6 of the federal laws. This is how things are, not how they were supposed to be.

I have a question, do you believe the founders would have allowed a state to completely ban all arms, and religion?

Is James Madison would have said I support the constitution, and the bill of rights on the federal level but only because I believe most states will not hold to them.
How do you think that would have went down.

 

[Pete D.]

question

Is (sic) James Madison would have said I support the constitution, and the bill of rights on the federal level but only because I believe most states will not hold to them.
How do you think that would have went down.

What is the point of a question like that? The question about Madison is subjunctive.....it asks about a situation that is contrary to fact. Madison did not do that and any resulting speculation cannot change the fact and has no bearing on reality.
Pete

 

[DeepSouth]

The point is to provoke thought. The argument seems to be that the founding documents, and apparently the fathers only delt with federal laws. Therefore, the freedoms contained in them do not not apply to states, unless the states want them to.

That's insane, logicly worked out that would mean a state could make all firearms illegal, along with anything else. If ISIS became legal residents of a state they could, by that logic, institute the death penalty for all non Muslims.

I believe that be that would be against the intent of the founders, which is my entire argument. Honestly it's an impossible argument to win because the people with the intent are all dead, and the courts rule can rule that the exact opposite of what they intended, is in fact what they intended. Then it's the law of the land, not because the founders intended it that way but because that's what the court said. It's the judicial branch legislating.

 

[Robert]

This has gone completely off topic. States rights and what the founding Fathers felt, while extremely interesting, is leading us ever more off the topic of wither or not firearms were harder to get 40 years ago.