Literal meaning of 2nd amendment - Page 5

Literal meaning of 2nd amendment

This is a discussion on Literal meaning of 2nd amendment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by bklynboy Hoppy, thank you for your kind words. Of course nobody knows what the SC will do next, even two of the ...

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 87
Like Tree163Likes

Thread: Literal meaning of 2nd amendment

  1. #61
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,716
    Quote Originally Posted by bklynboy View Post
    Hoppy, thank you for your kind words.

    Of course nobody knows what the SC will do next, even two of the best Pro 2A lawyers (Eugene Volkah and Dave Kopel - both of who were cited by Scalia in Heller) have come out with different opinions on the constitutionality of Mag limits and the AWB. Volkah thinks an AWB ban would likely not pass muster but a 10 round mag limit might Eugene Volokh on the constitutionality of RKBA restrictions post Heller. Kopel recently said that both AW's and standard size mags (15-20 for pistols and 30 for rifles) should both be deemed to comply with the Heller test of being in common use by civilians (and by cops who he makes a point of being civilian and not military) and could both be found to be protected The Second Amendment in 2013 (David B. Kopel)).

    As to constitutional carry, I agree that the states will be given great leeway with respect to open and concealed carry laws, but if a 'may issue' law in conjunction with a no open carry law operates to effectively eliminate virtually all rights to carry, I do not think that will pass constitutional muster.

    As to the NY law, we actually have an advantage here; both the NY law and many other similar state and federal recently proposed laws are so poorly researched and written due to how they were rushed through the process, I think there are many ways they might be found to be fatally flawed even without a full examination on the merits. Look for example at Feinstein's proposed bill, it permits a Mossberg 930 with a seven round mag and a pistol grip if it is painted in camo and called a turkey gun but prohibits the same exact gun painted in black and called a 930 SPX. The lack of a comment or waiting period in NY prior to making the law effective may also expose due process flaws. These kinds of sloppy mistakes increase the odds that the bills can at least be slowed down by a Temporary Restraining Order (which is also why it is asinine to be thinking in terms of civil disobedience at this point). Even on the merits, it is hard to see how the NY law can pass constitutional muster. The way I read it, it eliminates the vast majority of semi auto handguns and rifles manufactured in the last 25 years and the vast majority of non-revolver, non shotgun self defense guns. In totality, it may actually eliminate the majority of all guns currently in use by civilians in NY for self defense. There are not even 7 round mags made for most of the guns in question. By going for 7 rounds as opposed to 10, Cuomo may have doomed the law. I do not see how that broad a disarmament of defensive guns can be deemed permissible in light of the Heller holding that firearms "in common use" by civilians may not be arbitrary restricted.

    Finally, all of this depends on who is sitting on the SC. The worst strategic mistake made by the Anti's this time around was rushing things so much that Obama may not have a chance to change the composition of the SC before the issues come before the court. And let's not forget that Justice Kennedy, the swing vote here, is not as ideological as the other four Justices who would form the majority on AWB/>10 mag limits cases. Even though Kennedy voted with the majority in both Heller and McDonald, I have a feeling that he would be more constrained in supporting a broad holding in support of assault weapons and unlimited mag sizes. This may very well come down to what case actually ends up making its way through the courts and acting as the basis of a Cert Petition. One of the advantages we have here is that there are likely to be so many over the top laws, the Pro 2A lawyers will have plenty of room to choose the right case to take forward.
    @bklynboy: It looks like there are 2-3 or more separate conversations going on in this thread. I agree with most
    everything you wrote, but I am of the view (my personal view is worthless of course) that Kennedy
    is the least of the problems with getting NY's law overturned, should it even get that far, which maybe
    it won't for the reasons you have stated. I consider Scalia a wild card. He is the one who distinguished between
    reasonable regulation and "infringement," and we may not have heard the last from him with regard to how far
    he is willing to let "regulation" proceed.

    Meanwhile the NY mess has to wend its way through innumerable NY State and Federal courts before it will get anywhere
    near The Supremes. It seems likely to me that the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Foley St in NYC is likely to take
    a very expansive view of what has been said by The Supremes so far.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson


  2. #62
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,716
    Quote Originally Posted by bmcgilvray View Post
    I read the full text of the 1st amendment to the Constitution and nowhere does it state that we have the right to privately buy, own, or possess Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" on our personal bookshelves at our homes for an indefinite period of time.

    After all, neither the subject matter of such a fictional narrative nor the writing style were in existence in 1787 when the Constitution was adopted. Steam power hadn't been invented yet and the United States didn't possess the Mississippi River as part of its territory. No one in 1787 could foresee Huck and Jim fighting robbers on a wrecked steamboat or being run down by a steamboat, on the Mississippi River no less.

    Couldn't that be taken to mean that all the books could be kept downtown in the library and people could have access to them during commemorative reenactments or repressive ignorance? It talks about abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press but it doesn't actually state that everyone has the right to buy a book and privately keep it in their home forever.
    Or the exact opposite; that things change with the times, and hence Hue Hefner and Larry Flint are not in jail.
    No one in that post colonial period could have imagined their material being published, and they would surely have punished
    them severely, 1A or not, moreover the straight laced Supremes of the day would have found a way to make such punishment lawful. That they don't today, reflects the value of a living interpretation.

    So, once you concede that things change with the times you tear apart any underpinning for a "let's look at
    what it was like in 1789" solution. We are here, today, with 200 + years of laws regulating possession of firearms; like it or not.
    Indeed Texas has regulated heavily in the past, making the carrying of handguns almost totally illegal, for well more than 100 years-- until times and minds were changed.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  3. #63
    Senior Member Array sdprof's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Near the Black Hills of SD
    Posts
    1,077
    I will KEEP my arms, not the government.

    I will BEAR my arms, when and how I choose. Well, within some "reasonable" regulation by my state, which happens to be about as reasonable as any get.

    Here's a more readable version of the Congressional report mentioned above: http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/87senrpt.pdf
    ~~~~~
    The only common sense gun legislation was written about 224 years ago.

    I carry always not because I go places trouble is likely, but because trouble has a habit of not staying in its assigned zone.

  4. #64
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    6,193
    Just because something was done that was patently illegal for 100 yrs in some state and finally made right isnt an excuse for the here we are 200 yrs later so things will just change according to the whim of a few whacko politicians and justices.

    Once we reach the point of " well the Constitution says what it says but its later and we are oh so much more enlightened and civil blah blah blah so lets just say what we think it should say now and make all Americans swallow it like it or not, legal or not, because we the SC and Feds know so much better what is good for everyone in the country" we might as well just put a hammer and sickle on our flag.
    There is two different discussions going on here. One that knows this can only be pushed so far before it explodes and one that seems to think once the elite say this is the way it is that everyone is going to go along with it.
    For a quick wake up there are an awful lot not going along with it now. LE States and NY.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  5. #65
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Fantastic first post, and welcome to the board.
    ^^^^^YEP^^^^^^^^

    Sounds like tuft really knows how to win friends and influence enemies, ehh?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ksgunner View Post
    I'm not convinced that "bear arms" means to lock them up down town some place?
    Quote Originally Posted by Gliderguy View Post
    all the other nine amendments speak to personal rights and protection FROM governmental overbearance. Do you really believe the second amendment is really about a lower level of bureaucracy? I think the whole bill of rights are all about PERSONAL freedoms

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2
    ^I'm in this camp here^^^^^^^


    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    Noun: the innermost and strongest structure or central tower of a medieval castle.

    There... cleared that up.

    ^I don't think so.^^^^^

    Here is YOUR definition of the meaning of "Keep"


    a: fortress, castle; specifically: the strongest and securest part of a medieval castle

    Here is a more likely meaning of the word, according to the Authors of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, seeing as we had no, Medievil Castles here in the "New World" as of yet;


    a: to retain in one's possession or power <kept the money we found>

    BOTH taken from HERE; http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/keep


    Or could the OP and all who agree with him here @ DC be Trolls, jusst ready and able to throw gasoline on the fire?
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  6. #66
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,577
    The signers of the Declaration Of Independence that were from Pennsylvania were...

    George Ross
    James Wilson
    George Taylor
    James Smith
    George Clymer
    John Morton
    Benjamin Franklin
    Benjamin Rush
    Robert Morris

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The signers of the U.S. Constitution from Pennsylvania were...

    Gouverneur Morris
    James Wilson
    Jared Ingersoll
    Thomas FitzSimmons
    George Clymer
    Robert Morris
    Thomas Miffin
    Benjamin Franklin

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The Pennsylvania State Constitution predates the U.S. Constitution.
    The drafting of the PA Constitution was overseen by good old Ben Franklin.

    The PA. Constitution originally read:

    XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves ...and the state; and as standing armies in the 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.

    It was later amended to:

    "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves....and the State shall not be questioned."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    I think the above answers the question of "original intent" because Good Old Ben would have rushed back and said:

    "Hey...Guys...We gotta change the wording in our PA. Constitution because now....only regulated militias have the right to
    keep and bear arms!!!!"

    But, the PA Constitution stands today exactly as it was.


    We The People were intended to keep and bear arms in defense of ourselves and for the STATE - should we ever be called upon to do so.
    TX expat and shooterX like this.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  7. #67
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,101
    ^I don't think so.^^^^^

    Here is YOUR definition of the meaning of "Keep"


    a: fortress, castle; specifically: the strongest and securest part of a medieval castle

    Here is a more likely meaning of the word, according to the Authors of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, seeing as we had no, Medievil Castles here in the "New World" as of yet;


    a: to retain in one's possession or power <kept the money we found>

    BOTH taken from HERE; Keep - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



    Sarcasm detector on the fritz, huh?
    oneshot likes this.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  8. #68
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,962
    One thing that I can say with reasonably certainty based on personal writings and past evernts...

    The signers of the Constitution wouldn't be sitting around wringing their hands about the stuff thats been happening lately.

    They would have been shooting by now.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #69
    VIP Member Array Brad426's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,101
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    One thing that I can with reasonably certainty based on personal writings and past evernts...

    The signers of the Constitution wouldn't be sitting around wringing their hands about the stuff thats been happening lately.

    They would have been shooting by now.
    Well no so much them, since outside of Washington and Hamilton I don't think many of them actually fought in the war.
    I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.
    Clint Eastwood

  10. #70
    VIP Member
    Array oneshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    +42.893612,-082.710236 , Mi.
    Posts
    8,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Brad426 View Post
    ^I don't think so.^^^^^

    Here is YOUR definition of the meaning of "Keep"


    a: fortress, castle; specifically: the strongest and securest part of a medieval castle

    Here is a more likely meaning of the word, according to the Authors of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, seeing as we had no, Medievil Castles here in the "New World" as of yet;


    a: to retain in one's possession or power <kept the money we found>

    BOTH taken from HERE; Keep - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



    Sarcasm detector on the fritz, huh?
    Smart aleck!^^^^^^

    It did seem unlike you to post such sillyness


    I have been sidetracked with a family dilemma which had my thoughts in a whirlwind!
    Carry on!
    Brad426 likes this.
    If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.

    Washington didn't use his freedom of speech to defeat the British, He shot them!

    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." -- Ernest Benn

  11. #71
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,716
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghost1958 View Post
    Just because something was done that was patently illegal for 100 yrs in some state and finally made right isnt an excuse for the here we are 200 yrs later so things will just change according to the whim of a few whacko politicians and justices.

    Once we reach the point of " well the Constitution says what it says but its later and we are oh so much more enlightened and civil blah blah blah so lets just say what we think it should say now and make all Americans swallow it like it or not, legal or not, because we the SC and Feds know so much better what is good for everyone in the country" we might as well just put a hammer and sickle on our flag.
    There is two different discussions going on here. One that knows this can only be pushed so far before it explodes and one that seems to think once the elite say this is the way it is that everyone is going to go along with it.
    For a quick wake up there are an awful lot not going along with it now. LE States and NY.
    So, do you think all those convicted, all those who went to courts of appeal and lost, should now have their convictions posthumously overturned?

    Thing is, what you call "patently illegal," the judges and justices and law makers of the day found OK. They did what they were supposed to do. Make law. Make rulings.

    I'm not in a position to research the case law during that time, but it would be
    naive to think none of those convicted appealed, and that all of those judges and justices who were 100% OK with something "patently illegal" were fools, idiots, and had no knowledge of our constitution and its words or the historical meaning of the words therein.

    Our country wasn't born yesterday, and neither were the various judges of the time. And they were one heck of a lot closer to the origins then we are.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  12. #72
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,716
    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter;2577654
    The PA. Constitution originally read:

    [SIZE=3
    []XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves ...and the state; and as standing armies in the 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. [/SIZE]
    The part I put in bold caused our country a huge amount of trouble during its first 20 years of existence under the US Constitution. In fact, Uncle then lacked any reasonable means of collecting money to support a standing army and
    was dependent on the "good will" of the states for the most part, to lend them their militia. Phrases like that one
    almost caused us to be run over variously by France, Spain, and England; and almost did us in while we were still
    too young a country to properly defend ourselves through reliance on state controlled militia-- something we still can't do. That's why we have a standing army.

    I don't think anyone today seriously thinks we shouldn't have a standing army, and with that change, some of the other things
    in that early constitution of PA's need a different interpretation as well. I'd drag this thread way off topic if I continued down this thought road.

    I just wanted to point out that merely because something was a certain way 200+ years back does not mean we can't look at it differently nowadays. That one phrase being a prime example.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #73
    Member Array d2jlking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    419
    Regardless of all the extra conversations going on in this thread.....the OP's (troll) initial post was wrong. The Supreme Court as others so eloquently stated, has ruled that the 2A is an individual right. Individual states like New York who rushed to pass new legislation made a mistake. This is simply a very important chapter in what is going to continue to be a long battle. If the anti-gun folks have their way, we will all be disarmed. I believe in the spirit of the American People. I think the will of the people on this issue will eventually be heard. Are there other rights within the Bill of Rights under such constant assault? I read on here before someone comparing the attack on the 2A to a similar attack on the 1A. Liberals and Dems would not stand for that. People choose the issues they are willing to fight for.
    bklynboy likes this.

  14. #74
    Senior Member Array stanislaskasava's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    U.S.
    Posts
    1,121
    I'm sure early American history is chock-full of examples of townsfolk preferring to store their musket in a central location. This idea was certainly borrowed from the Native Americans who were known to store their tomahawks and bows in a cave, for convenience. The founding fathers decided that this idea was so important that they wrote it into the Constitution.

    I quite like this idea myself and am currently looking for a place to store my guns and knives. Preferably within 5 miles of my house, in case I need them in a hurry. If it was good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
    Hopyard likes this.

  15. #75
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,095
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Or the exact opposite; that things change with the times, and hence Hue Hefner and Larry Flint are not in jail.
    No one in that post colonial period could have imagined their material being published, and they would surely have punished
    them severely, 1A or not, moreover the straight laced Supremes of the day would have found a way to make such punishment lawful. That they don't today, reflects the value of a living interpretation.

    So, once you concede that things change with the times you tear apart any underpinning for a "let's look at
    what it was like in 1789" solution. We are here, today, with 200 + years of laws regulating possession of firearms; like it or not.
    Indeed Texas has regulated heavily in the past, making the carrying of handguns almost totally illegal, for well more than 100 years-- until times and minds were changed.
    Discussing ways the founders would have violated the Constitution in their time is not an excuse for, or justification for, all the ways we violate it now. This "living document" crap needs to stop. It says what it says, and is generally written quite clearly. It doesn't need to be interpreted, it needs to be enforced. If we truly can't live under something in there, well, that's why there is an amendment process. The fact that messing with it is generally a terrible idea (see Amendments 16-18) shows why they made it fairly difficult to use that option.
    HotGuns and airslot like this.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

guncite-second amendment-the supreme court and the second amendment. guncite-second amendment-the supreme court and the
,
literal 2nd amendment
,
literal constitution second amendment
,
literal interpretation of second amendment
,

literal meaning of amendment 24

,
literal meaning of the 2nd amendment
,

literal meaning of the second amendment

,

literal translation of the 2nd amendment

,

second amendment literal wording

,

second amendment meaning

,
the literal meaning for the 2nd amendment
,
what is the literal interpretation of the second amendment
Click on a term to search for related topics.