The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

[danielpalos]

But the point of the 14th amendment was that the courts and the federal government also after the 14th was ratified, to prevent any government from infringing, (undo abuse), or any individual right.

So then the only way the 2nd amendment is used by the 14 is the theory that if a right is so important that the feds are to be denied infringement, then likely the states should also be denied infringement.
So your referencing the introductory clause about organized or not, is inappropriate.
The need to implement the 14th amendment does not at all care what the original intent of the 2nd amendment was.
The need to implement the 14th amendment is using the "Pneumbra Effect", attempting to hunt for individual rights that might be accidentally revealed only by their shadow, in other documents, like the 2nd amendment.
It is an indirect inference, not explicitly stated or intended to be stated.

The 14th Amendment does not nullify our Second Amendment. States have a right to organize and regulate well, militia of the whole and entire People.

 

[Rigby5]

It only seems strange if you appeal to ignorance of the law. I understand that Legal Authority is Delegated to the State and no longer reserved as a right of Individuals when there is conflict (with certain exceptions). It is Why, the Judicial branch is delegated the judicial power and not Individuals.

The police power has its origin and purpose in the general welfare of the state or, as it is sometimes expressed, the public health, public morals, and public safety. The government may properly exercise its police powers to regulate land use as well.--https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers

Thus, yes, it makes all the difference in the world whether or not the People are organized or unorganized. Our Second Amendment is clear. Well regulated militia of the People being Necessary to the security of a free State may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The unorganized militia, as Individuals, are subject to the police power of a State; this is a self-evident Truth since gun control regulations are part of that police power. Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Your view merely appeals to ignorance of express law. You confuse our First Amendment with our Second Amendment. Context is everything. There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and the People are the Militia for that purpose.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

No, legal authority is not automatically delegated to the state. The state has to deserve that delegated authority by facilitating the greatest rights for all, through equitable compromise.

When the state does not do its duty to facilitate the greatest rights for all, then it not only has no authority, due to our delegated authority we loaned to the state being rescinded, but the state can then become the greatest threat to our individual rights that exists, so then deserves to be destroyed.
The proof of that is obvious, not only by the American Revolution, but the fact there is not any state that has ever not required at least on violent revolution. And the reality is that most states require a violent revolution ever 400 years or so. No state is ever static or to be trusted.

But I do not need to argue anything else, because I agree the 2nd amendment was not intended to prevent state or local firearm restriction.
It did not become an issue of individual firearm rights until the 14th amendment. And it is more properly addressed in state constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

No, legal authority is not automatically delegated to the state. The state has to deserve that delegated authority by facilitating the greatest rights for all, through equitable compromise.

We have State Constitutions and You have the equivalent to a First Amendment at the State level.

 

[Rigby5]

The 14th Amendment does not nullify our Second Amendment. States have a right to organize and regulate well, militia of the whole and entire People.

I never suggested the 14th nullified the 2nd.
The point is there are 2 different amendments with different goals.
The 2nd was to limit federal infringement on weapons rights.
The 14th was to limit state infringement on all individual rights.

And I wish you would stop repeating, "States have a right to organize and regulate well, militia of the whole and entire People."
It is totally unclear what you mean by that, so it would help if you said something else.
For example, what is a "State"?
In theory this country is a loose federation of sovereign states.
But the federal government has thing like the State Department, so is also considered a state.
And that is really confusing when you just say "state".

 

[Rigby5]

We have State Constitutions and You have the equivalent to a First Amendment at the State level.

True, and there is also the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in each state constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

True, and there is also the equivalent of the 2nd amendment in each state constitution.

That means there is a procedure for asserting your rights.

Only the organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. The unorganized militia as Individuals of the People are subject to the police power of their State for gun control purposes.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

 

[danielpalos]

I never suggested the 14th nullified the 2nd.
The point is there are 2 different amendments with different goals.
The 2nd was to limit federal infringement on weapons rights.
The 14th was to limit state infringement on all individual rights.

And I wish you would stop repeating, "States have a right to organize and regulate well, militia of the whole and entire People."
It is totally unclear what you mean by that, so it would help if you said something else.
For example, what is a "State"?
In theory this country is a loose federation of sovereign states.
But the federal government has thing like the State Department, so is also considered a state.
And that is really confusing when you just say "state".

The 14th merely reiterates our original Constitution and Bill of Right, to "dumb it down for the right-wing".

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[Rigby5]

That means there is a procedure for asserting your rights.

Only the organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union. The unorganized militia as Individuals of the People are subject to the police power of their State for gun control purposes.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

No I have to disagree again when you say, "Only the organized militia has literal recourse to our Second Amendment".
Lets say the whole point of the 2nd amendment was just so that there would be an organized militia available for the feds to draw on.
It does not matter WHY the 2nd prohibits any and all federal firearm jurisdiction, it then just does.
If the states then want their own organized militia or if they want disorganized armed individuals, is totally up to them as far as the 2nd amendment goes.
So it is very wrong to say the 2nd amendment is only for if you are a member of THE organized militia.
All the 2nd amendment can to is stop federal jurisdiction.
It does not and can not say anything about what states then can decide.

If all you meant to say was that the 2nd amendment ( or any amendment), does not guarantee absolute individual rights, then I would agree.
The 4th and 5th come closes to listing individual rights, like being secure in person and property against government abuse, but since it does not list any details, such as what "due process" is, so is only an abstraction, and can not be legal recourse to prove an individual right.
None of the Bill of Rights enshrines any individual rights.
It just strictly prohibits certain federal jurisdiction and behavior.
That is all it was for, to reduce fear of what the federal government may try to do.
And those fears proved correct, because the federal government now is violating all of those rights to some degree.

 

[Rigby5]

The 14th merely reiterates our original Constitution and Bill of Right, to "dumb it down for the right-wing".

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Very wrong.
Originally states were supreme, could do whatever they wanted.
When states joined the Union, they gave up a very small number of powers to the federal government, but that was all.
There are really NO individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights, so the 14th can't be reiterating them.
All the Bill of Rights does is limit federal powers.
Does the 14th limit state powers?
Yes it does.
But it is hugely different than the Bill of Rights, because the Bill of Rights had a much easier job.
All it has to do was say board topics were out of federal jurisdiction.
The 14th amendment is saying no one, states or feds, can violate an infinite number of individual rights, that can never be fully enumerated.
The 14th is not dividing jurisdiction between states and feds like the Bill of Rights does.
The 14th is establishing the Judiciary as the source that can essentially make law on the fly, as it becomes clear there is any government abuse that needs to be curtailed.
That sound wrong to many people, but there simply is no other way to do it, and that really is how law has always been and must be, because you can never enumerate all of the infinite rights individuals are always supposed to have.
That is why mandated sentence minimums are so incredibly illegal. The whole point of law is that judges have to be free to use their discretion on what individual rights really are.

 

[danielpalos]

Very wrong.
Originally states were supreme, could do whatever they wanted.
When states joined the Union, they gave up a very small number of powers to the federal government, but that was all.

You seem to have mostly propaganda and rhetoric.

This is in our federal Constitution:

Article 4, Section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[Rigby5]

You seem to have mostly propaganda and rhetoric.

This is in our federal Constitution:

Article 4, Section 2: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

What does that mean?
Here is one interpretation:
{...
Article IV, Section 2 guarantees that states cannot discriminate against citizens of other states. States must give people from other states the same fundamental rights it gives its own citizens.
...}
That is not good enough because it does not stop slavery, illegally abusing the rights of convicted felons, the illegal War on Drugs, mandated sentences, illegal 3 strikes laws, illegal asset forfeiture, etc.

You seem to have vastly too much faith in our legal system.
But if you were Black or something, and were killed by a cop who was abusing his power, what good would failed means of redress of grievance in this country be?
I don't expect any system to be perfect, and I am willing to accept some abuse by government, as long as the positive is worth the loses.
But that is clearly not going to be true much longer.
The government is becoming exponentially more abusive, corrupt, and illegal.
The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, were horrendous war crimes, for example.
So then HOW can any one justify something like federal gun control, which is explicitly illegal according to the constitution?

 

[danielpalos]

I am pretty sure it covers anything in our Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

I am pretty sure it covers anything in our Fourteenth Amendment.

That can't be true that the article 4, sec. 2, in the constitution guaranteeing equal treatment between different states, means equal treatment of all individuals within a state, because it did not stop slavery, segregation, etc.
We never did end those abuses within a state, but clearly the 14th amendment helped a great deal.
There is no doubt the 14th amendment was necessary, and actually did not go far enough even.
States and the federal government are still abusing individual rights.
We need even more protection from government abuses.
While they repealed Prohibition, we still have the illegal war on drugs, for example.
All nanny law proscribing personal behavior that does not directly harm others, is totally illegal under the abstract concepts of a democratic republic.
They are arbitrarily authoritarian, and must not be allowed.

 

[danielpalos]

That can't be true that the article 4, sec. 2, in the constitution guaranteeing equal treatment between different states, means equal treatment of all individuals within a state, because it did not stop slavery, segregation, etc.
We never did end those abuses within a state, but clearly the 14th amendment helped a great deal.
There is no doubt the 14th amendment was necessary, and actually did not go far enough even.
States and the federal government are still abusing individual rights.
We need even more protection from government abuses.
While they repealed Prohibition, we still have the illegal war on drugs, for example.
All nanny law proscribing personal behavior that does not directly harm others, is totally illegal under the abstract concepts of a democratic republic.
They are arbitrarily authoritarian, and must not be allowed.

That was the point. Faithful execution of our own Constitution could have eschewed any perceived need for a Civil War.

 

[Rigby5]

That was the point. Faithful execution of our own Constitution could have eschewed any perceived need for a Civil War.

I don't think so.
Article 4, sect. 2, is trying to prevent one state from discriminating against those of another state.
If both states have slavery, then article 4, sect. 2 is satisfied.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't think so.
Article 4, sect. 2, is trying to prevent one state from discriminating against those of another state.
If both states have slavery, then article 4, sect. 2 is satisfied.

All persons naturally born in the US after 1808 were citizens.

 

[Rigby5]

All persons naturally born in the US after 1808 were citizens.

Article 4, sect 2, does not prevent discrimination within a state, but only between states.

The Constitution originally was very weak.
The Articles of Confederation before that was even weaker.
So weak they could not defend the country.
They idea of interfering with states was out of the question.
But now it has gone to the opposite extreme, and the federal government is WAY too powerful.
By collecting so much income tax, the federal government is extorting all the states.
The federal government is to have nothing to do with guns, drugs, medicine, or any of the things the federal government illegally incarcerates a quarter million people over.

 

[woodwork201]

I tend to agree since it says, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
But what does "infringed" mean?
For example, some reasonable restrictions, such as legislating a minimum age, does not have to be infringing, as long as it is state and not federal?
Personally I think the founders did want juveniles to be able to access firearms in an emergency, but likely not bearing arms all the time.

If that were true then they would have outlawed children carrying firearms. What the Founders wanted was that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

We know exactly what "infringed" meant in 1789. From Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1768: Infringe: To violate; to break laws or contracts, to destroy, to hinder.

We also know what "infringed" means according to today's understanding of the language, from Dictionary.com Is The World’s Favorite Online Dictionary:

verb (used with object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.


Nothing there about reasonable violations, or reasonable hindrance. In fact, the word reasonable isn't in the definition at all - not in 1768 or in 2021.

The Founders, in creating the 1st Amendment, identified a seemingly unrelated set of restrictions in the 1st Amendment. What was the common theme, though, in all of them? Many think the First Amendment is about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion. It is not. It's about restrictions on the Federal Congress - specific restrictions on things about which Congress cannot pass a law. Congress shall make no law...

The Second Amendment, on the other hand, was not a restriction on Congress; it was a rule for all of the United States - not the Federal Government but for all of government in the United States. Had the Founders wanted to just restrict Congress from passing creating a Federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms then they could have included that in the First Amendment. Or they could have written the Second Amendment to say,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

They demonstrated in the First Amendment that they were fully capable of assigning restrictions only to the Federal Government and that they knew how to communicate that intention. In the Second Amendment they did not limit that rule to just the Federal Government.

In the United States of America, there is no Federal militia. Militia are state entities. Being necessary to the security of a free State, and being entities of the States, then it must be that to ensure the security of the States, the right of the people in the States should not be infringed by the States or the Federal Government. How hard is that to understand?

As an apparent libertarian - not surprising since you're from New Mexico - you get a lot of this stuff pretty close but you're really missing the junction between libertarianism and constitutioanlism in that government has no authority except that voluntarily given to them by the governed.

We're not a monarchy; there are no Americans that bleed blue blood. No one has a right to tell you anything about how to live your life by right of their own birth. Government have what authority they have by the Constitution of the United States of America, and/or by the constitutions of the individual states. When you understand your own freedom and liberty, and understand the tradeoff made by your forefathers, surrendering some small bit of that liberty by ratifying the Constitution, then you will also understand that the only power government has is that which is explicitly granted by the Constitution. If you value your own self, you will understand why it is so necessary to fight to keep government within the bounds of the Constitution - including, perhaps especially, regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Rigby5]

If that were true then they would have outlawed children carrying firearms. What the Founders wanted was that the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

We know exactly what "infringed" meant in 1789. From Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language, 1768: Infringe: To violate; to break laws or contracts, to destroy, to hinder.

We also know what "infringed" means according to today's understanding of the language, from Dictionary.com Is The World’s Favorite Online Dictionary:

verb (used with object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object), in·fringed, in·fring·ing.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon): Don't infringe on his privacy.


Nothing there about reasonable violations, or reasonable hindrance. In fact, the word reasonable isn't in the definition at all - not in 1768 or in 2021.

The Founders, in creating the 1st Amendment, identified a seemingly unrelated set of restrictions in the 1st Amendment. What was the common theme, though, in all of them? Many think the First Amendment is about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion. It is not. It's about restrictions on the Federal Congress - specific restrictions on things about which Congress cannot pass a law. Congress shall make no law...

The Second Amendment, on the other hand, was not a restriction on Congress; it was a rule for all of the United States - not the Federal Government but for all of government in the United States. Had the Founders wanted to just restrict Congress from passing creating a Federal infringement on the right to keep and bear arms then they could have included that in the First Amendment. Or they could have written the Second Amendment to say,

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

They demonstrated in the First Amendment that they were fully capable of assigning restrictions only to the Federal Government and that they knew how to communicate that intention. In the Second Amendment they did not limit that rule to just the Federal Government.

In the United States of America, there is no Federal militia. Militia are state entities. Being necessary to the security of a free State, and being entities of the States, then it must be that to ensure the security of the States, the right of the people in the States should not be infringed by the States or the Federal Government. How hard is that to understand?

As an apparent libertarian - not surprising since you're from New Mexico - you get a lot of this stuff pretty close but you're really missing the junction between libertarianism and constitutioanlism in that government has no authority except that voluntarily given to them by the governed.

We're not a monarchy; there are no Americans that bleed blue blood. No one has a right to tell you anything about how to live your life by right of their own birth. Government have what authority they have by the Constitution of the United States of America, and/or by the constitutions of the individual states. When you understand your own freedom and liberty, and understand the tradeoff made by your forefathers, surrendering some small bit of that liberty by ratifying the Constitution, then you will also understand that the only power government has is that which is explicitly granted by the Constitution. If you value your own self, you will understand why it is so necessary to fight to keep government within the bounds of the Constitution - including, perhaps especially, regarding the right to keep and bear arms.

How do you know there were not state or municipal laws restricting juveniles from packing guns in public back then?
There likely were.
But that is not an infringement in any way, because kids likely should not normally be armed.
So preventing kids from being armed in public infringes upon nothing.
Kids do not have an inherent right or need to be armed in public, and should instead be protected from lethal harm by armed adult parents.

And you are wrong about the Bill of Rights. Rights are infinite, so it is wrong to ever try to list any rights at all. So that is not what the Bill of Right was for. It was only about dividing jurisdiction between federal and all other.
Again, a reasonable restriction is NOT an infringement.
For example, speed limits are reasonable restrictions, so not an infringement.
I agree militias were by states or municipalities, so feds should have nothing to do with gun laws, but again, juveniles did not belong to militias either.
So there would be no infringing on the militia to not allow juveniles to own guns.

But I am not Libertarian. Far left actually, more Socialist or Green Party really.
But I can get along with most Libertarian ways of thinking.
The far left and the far right sort of come full circle.
But Gary Johnson was governor from 95 to 2003, and I did not get to NM until 2015.

I agree that individual inherent rights are the only source of legal authority.
But we can delegate some of our individual authority to peace keepers, as long as they just defend rights when they come into conflict.
And surely you have to agree a conflict of rights can happen with firearms.
For example, a drunk shooting into the air on the 4th of July should probably get arrested?
Don't you agree?

 

[danielpalos]

Article 4, sect 2, does not prevent discrimination within a state, but only between states.

The Constitution originally was very weak.
The Articles of Confederation before that was even weaker.
So weak they could not defend the country.
They idea of interfering with states was out of the question.
But now it has gone to the opposite extreme, and the federal government is WAY too powerful.
By collecting so much income tax, the federal government is extorting all the states.
The federal government is to have nothing to do with guns, drugs, medicine, or any of the things the federal government illegally incarcerates a quarter million people over.

It is for federal due process purposes. States have their own Constitutional clauses regarding equal protection.