SavannahMann
Platinum Member
- Nov 16, 2016
- 14,015
- 6,545
- 365
And I said (and you quoted) but apparently did not read:
"[Text] is not the only test . . . The test is three-pronged, text, relevant history and tradition.A law must be shown to either be directly represented in ratification period history (1791) or have at least some historical analogue in that period that can show a traditional intent to bar such persons from gun possession and use."
The question about "text" is; does the history of the nation show that persons found guilty for crimes that jeopardize public safety, peace, or order, (in a constitutionally sufficient proceeding), have been traditionally excluded from “the people”?
If “the people” means the same thing under the First and Second Amendments—and those who abuse their rights and commit crimes and violence can be constitutionally excluded from the First Amendment’s protections, they may be excluded from the Second Amendment’s protections.
Traditionally those released from Prison were able to buy guns no problem. This was even true of escaped convicts. There was no background check. Anyone able to look over the counter and fork over the money was able to buy guns.
Including fully automatic weapons.
When Teddy Roosevelt went up San Juan Hill he was supported by two early Machine Guns which were privately purchased and donated by a wealthy patron.
Convicted Felons being prohibited from owning firearms is a modern standard. Started in the 20th Century wasn’t it?
Foreigners were allowed to buy guns. There was no citizenship requirement. Nor any prohibition for any reason. If you had the cash you could buy the gun.