Skip to main content

View Diary: RKBA: A Civil Right (365 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Seems pretty straightforward (17+ / 0-)

    and conclusive.

    "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

    by happy camper on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 06:13:32 AM PDT

    •  19th century courts understood (15+ / 0-)

      That the phrase "bearing arms" did not refer to private gun ownership, but military service.  

      From Navy Vet Terp's excellent diary:

      Turning to the latter clause of the Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," the language enuciates a right "to keep and bear arms," not to "possess and own arms."  Nineteenth Century state courts construed "bear arms" as having a purely military function.  From the Tennessee Supreme Court:
      A man in pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms.
      Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154 (1840).

      From the Texas Supreme Court:

      The word 'arms' in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense.
      English v. State, 35 Tex. 473 (1872).

      And from the West Virginia supeme court:  

      In regard to the kind of arms referred to in the [Second] Amendment, it must be held to refer to the weapons of warfare to be used by the militia.
      State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367 (1891).
    •  Not really (7+ / 0-)

      That's a terrible definition to begin with. Civil rights as any right in the US constitution?  That's kind of a strange approach.  Civil rights are more commonly related, well to civics and used to refer rights the underpin civil and political participation

      Something more akin to this:

      Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.

      Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical and mental integrity, life and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as race, gender, national origin, colour, ethnicity, religion, or disability;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, assembly and movement.

      If you read the rest of the defeinition from, it isn't necessarily coextensive with the BOR:
      n. those rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, including the right to due process, equal treatment under the law of all people regarding enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and protection. Positive civil rights include the right to vote, the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of a democratic society, such as equal access to public schools, recreation, transportation, public facilities, and housing, and equal and fair treatment by law enforcement and the courts.
      You don't need a gun for that, and in a very real way the right it individual gun ownership is antithetical to many of these rights. (For example, physical and mental integrity, life and safety are clearly undercut. Also, given the penchant for armed people to intimidate and tea press unarmed people, it seems to easy a path to abuse of other rights as well (think KKK and other using threats of violence to put down people they don't like).

      So, perhaps a cherry picked set of old laws might include the right to have guns (really? We are looking to TEXAS for definitions of civil rights?  I'm sure Eric Holder would find that interesting.), but that doesn't answer the more basic question of whether there is any relationship between civic participation and gun ownership.  That seems at best speculative and tenuous

      •  Eric Holder??? The head of the DOJ that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        oldpunk, BlackSheep1, annecros

        wishes to grant immunity to the Bush Crime Syndicate for their war crimes and crimes against humanity?

        I find using him as a "legitimate" legal referee untenable.

        Your "positive rights" are covered by the 9th and 10th A's, aren't they?


        The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


        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.

        We retain rights NOT enumerated.  Including the right to vote, etc.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 09:11:30 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  um (2+ / 0-)

          Eric Holder just launched a VRA act to protect civil rights from the attempts by the Texas GOP to keep minority voters from voting.  Thus, I'd suggest that given Texas' history (including protecting the right of racists to have guns to intimidate black people), this isn't a great place to look for a sane definition.  (Furthermore, I'd note that the Texas law conditions the right to have guns on restoration of civil rights.  Actually, that language suggests that the restoration is not restored as a part of the package of civil rights but rather as a separate right that can't be restored prior, in truth.)

    •  Except for this: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpunk, notrouble, annecros
      2. United States v. Cruikshank (1875)

          6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

      And this:

      (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.


            (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.


      Black's Law Dictionary needs to be corrected.

      Besides, this mentality overturns the very concept that "We The People" grant limited powers and authority to our created government.  That our government has some inherent right to exist and rule, it does not.

      Our government cannot grant me anything I do not already possess.   They can ensure my Equity Under Law and protect those rights for my enjoyment.

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Mon Aug 26, 2013 at 08:53:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site