Yesterday we talked about how the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right.
Let's talk about individual rights vs the group right view.
Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections. We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.
Where to start? How 'bout the actual text of the second amendment.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Some people say the prefatory statement is binding. You need militia membership in order to exercise your right to bear arms. Some say the 'well regulated militia' part means the government can put any controls they want to on the right to keep and bear arms.
Instead of quibbling about present day usage or sentence structure, I'm going to go back to the late 1700s and go through the 1800s so we can see how it was viewed BEFORE gun control was pushed at the federal level (I'm talking pre-NFA, 1934). If we need to amend the Constitution because we disagree with what the Founders put into it, then we do so. We've amended it 27 times. If enough people believe something is wrong, we can amend it again.
So, where to start? Ah yes, the late 1700s. How 'bout we start with some quotes?
The Federalist Papers!
Federalist 46:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
My bold.
Zachariah Johnson, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 3] Wednesday, June 25, 1788
The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.
John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States, 475 [1787-1788]
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
My bold, of course.
Madison's note's on the speech he was giving to Congress on the amendments. June 8, 1789
They relate 1st. to private rights
Perhaps you'd like to compare the Constitution to itself? That is 1/2 of a different diary and I'm not going to post it here, except to
link, and start with the paragraph that says "Now my favorite part: the people!"
Maybe you're saying that the second amendment is weird and is the only amendment with that strange phrasing. Well, there's a diary for that too! In fact, it's the same diary that I just linked, written by your's truly. Look for the paragraph that starts with this (I contend that the first section is a prefatory clause.) and go from there.
There are various other sources of quoted from Jefferson, Washington, Paine and others, but I cannot find great sources for their letters online. So I'll leave them out. Feel free to add them in the comments if you find them. Also, please double check the quotes. Lots of things get attributed to people that they never said.
On to the 1800s!
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
Dred Scott vs John Sandford, SCOTUS Decision, 1856
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
My bold. Perhaps you're wondering why I'm using this case since it's now defunct (and rightly so). It goes to show the point of view on the right to keep and bear arms back in the mid 1800s, as well as slavery. We amended the Constitution to abolish slavery. Whether you agree with the individual right to keep and bear arms or not, we have not abolished those rights guaranteed by the second amendment.
Perhaps you saw the diary from the other day about RKBA being a Civil Right. If you missed it, here ya go. In it I reference legislation passed after the Civil War. Let's take a closer look.
"Black Codes" of Mississippi 1865
Sec. 1. Be it enacted,...That no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife, and on conviction thereof in the county court shall be punished by fine, not exceeding ten dollars, and pay the costs of such proceedings, and all such arms or ammunition shall be forfeited to the informer; and it shall be the duty of every civil and military officer to arrest any freedman, free negro, or mulatto found with any such arms or ammunition, and cause him or her to be committed to trial in default of bail.
Why are they passing laws to disarm people of colour when they weren't part of the militia (not in the south [yes, Louisiana as an exception]) unless it was to prevent them from exercising their individual right to keep and bear arms?
United States vs. Cruikshank, SCOTUS Decision, 1876
The second avers an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the "right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose."
...
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
So, the second amendment is a right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose and the Constitution is only limiting on the federal government, not the state governments. (This was changed and the second amendment was incorporated against the states via due process
in McDonald vs Chicago.)
Presser vs. Illinois, SCOTUS Decision, 1886
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
So laws against armed men associating together in a military organization (or drilling/parading with arms) are ok; they don't infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They also quote Cruishank as the right of the people to keep and bear arms not being a Constitutionally granted right.
I have to throw in one quote from a militant black Civil Rights activist of a less ancient time.
Malcolm X, The Ballot or the Bullet, 1964
Article number two of the constitutional amendments provides you and me the right to own a rifle or a shotgun. It is constitutionally legal to own a shotgun or a rifle.