There is no idea like an idea whose time has come: It is time to amend the Second Amendment.

[Damaged Eagle]

It’s clear that the original intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to codify a collective – not individual – right to possess a firearm pursuant to militia service and militia service alone.

And as noted, with the advent of the states’ national guard, the notion of participating in a militia became moot, there is no Federal right to posses a firearm, where the states were at liberty to recognize and codify such a right at the state level – or not.

Until Heller and McDonald.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court, and current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that the Second Amendment right is an individual right unconnected with militia service, and a Federal right.

Until that changes – through the amendment process or the judicial process where Heller and McDonald are overturned – there will be no assault weapon ban, no magazine capacity restrictions, and such state and local laws will be eventually struck down by the Supreme Court, illustrating more hypocrisy from conservatives and their inconsistent advocacy of “states’ rights.”

So we make it so that every able bodied person has to do two years of military service even if it's just national guard week ends and once they're done they're told to keep the firearm, even if it's fully automatic, along with being required to keep ten thousand rounds for it in stock at their residence since they are now considered part of the on call militia.

Additionally once they are part of the on call militia they will be allowed to purchase any type of firearm they want, including fully automatics, without a permit, licensing, training, or any other poll tax that the government thinks they can impose on that citizens rights.

After all the Constitution's 2nd Amendment clearly calls for the formation of a militia and everyone should be willing to serve because with equal rights comes equal responsibilities.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Mac-7]

Thank you for your continued engagement in this discussion, Mac-7. I understand your concerns about the potential implications of the proposed amendment. However, it's important to remember that the intention of the original essay is not to disarm honest citizens, but rather to promote a constructive dialogue about finding a balance between individual rights and public safety.

As mentioned earlier, the proposal does not advocate for banning guns outright. It seeks to allow states and local jurisdictions more flexibility to regulate firearms according to their specific needs, while maintaining certain guarantees for gun ownership, such as single shot bolt action rifles and handguns at the state level.

Addressing gun violence effectively will likely require a combination of measures beyond just regulating firearms, such as mental health support, enhanced background checks, and community-based initiatives, among others. It's crucial to engage in a wide-ranging dialogue that involves multiple stakeholders in order to identify and implement the most effective strategies for reducing violence.

As for your concerns about the potential impact of banning guns on other forms of violence, it's important to recognize that each type of violence requires a tailored approach to prevention and intervention. While it's true that eliminating guns alone won't solve all violence-related issues, the goal of the proposal is to contribute to a broader conversation about how to create a safer society for everyone.

In conclusion, I encourage all participants in this discussion to approach the dialogue with an open mind and take each other's opinions at face value. By engaging in constructive conversation, we can better understand one another's perspectives and work towards potential solutions that balance individual rights and public safety.

Cheers,
Rumpole

I see through you

And its not a pretty picture

Btw: are you an American?

I doubt that you are

 

[Orangecat]

I realize this proposal is stirring up a proverbial hornet's nest, and the idea has about as much of a chance as catching a cloud with a fishnet. Nevertheless, I believe it is time to at least start the conversation. Think of this conversation as planting a seed. There is an old saying: "There is no idea like one whose time has come." I think this idea is just that – an idea whose time has come. And that idea is to amend the Second Amendment.

It is indeed a pressing concern to address the issue of gun violence in the United States, particularly when it comes to school shootings. While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, the changing landscape of American society has led to calls for re-evaluating and amending this constitutional provision. The proposed "2A v.2" offers a nuanced approach to addressing this issue, allowing states to regulate guns as they see fit while still preserving the right to own firearms for specific purposes.

First, it is crucial to acknowledge that the context in which the Second Amendment was written has evolved significantly. The original intent of the framers was to ensure the ability of citizens to form a well-regulated militia, as a check against potential tyranny. However, as former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens pointed out, the National Guard now serves the purpose of a militia, making the original rationale for the Second Amendment less applicable to modern society.

Second, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment balances the need for individual rights with public safety. It respects the right to own single-shot bolt action rifles for hunting, self-defense, and sustenance purposes, as well as the right to own handguns at the state level. These provisions acknowledge the cultural and historical significance of gun ownership in America, while providing a framework for states to enact regulations that reflect the values and needs of their citizens.

Third, by allowing cities the right to ban handguns, the proposed amendment recognizes the unique challenges urban areas face when it comes to gun violence. The density and diversity of city populations can contribute to higher rates of crime, and localized handgun bans may be an effective way to address this issue. This proposal also respects the principle of local control, empowering cities to implement solutions tailored to their specific circumstances. Note that in the old west, many small towns required residents, when entering the town's borders, to turn in their guns to the local sheriff's office, yet no one complained about the second amendment. Since the NRA has become such a central force in opposing any regulation of arms, which, in my view, their efforts make it difficult for states and municipalities to regulate arms as the see fit, as they see are needed for their state's circumstances, circumstances with vary, not only from state to state, but from region to region, I feel this is an idea whose time has come.

Finally, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment maintains the spirit of the Second Amendment while adapting it to address the modern reality of gun violence. It offers a flexible framework for states and cities to develop regulations that protect public safety without infringing on individual rights. By updating the Second Amendment in this way, the United States can work towards reducing the devastating impact of gun violence while still respecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Also note that since I am not an expert on rifles, my view on single-shot bolt action versus semi automatic rifles is not solidified in my proposal, and I remain open to arguments presented by experts on their reasoning for continuing to allow for semi-automatic rifles. Also note that the amendment allows states to allow for semi-automatics--remember, a constitutional amendment is not a ban whatsoever, it is just being amended to allow states more freedom to regulate without interference from, what I personally view as, second amendment radical groups such as the NRA. Obviously, the NRA and it's hard core believers will oppose this idea, and I expect that.

What argument I reject is the one that goes; "if you ban guns only criminals will have guns". I reject it given that since the stern regulation, the hurdles placed on the path to owning a fully automatic machine gun have vastly reduced crimes for that particular weapon, there are very view crimes committed with them. Remember, 'I am not an expert" and if my reasoning is faulty, I invite your arguments to the contrary, and, of course, that goes for this entire proposal. The details, I'm asserting, are subject to negotiation, but I do feel the time has come for an amendment to the second amendment, one that will allow states and cities more freedom to regulate arms as they see fit, for the needs or their states and municipalities.

In conclusion, although the idea of amending the Second Amendment may seem like a difficult conversation to initiate, it is essential to plant the seed of change in order to address the pressing issue of gun violence in the United States. The "2A v.2" proposal offers a balanced and nuanced approach that respects individual rights, public safety, and local control. By engaging in this conversation, we can explore potential solutions and work towards creating a safer society for all.

*So, ladies and gentlemen, "fire away" (with your affirmations, discussions, and debate/counter arguments. Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun ).

Humbly tendered,
Rumpole

**************************************************************​

*Caveat: rude comments, "TLDL" comments, snarky and lazy retorts, disingenuous comments, ad nauseum, will be ignored.

No thanks, Bunghole.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It’s clear that the original intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment was to codify a collective – not individual – right to possess a firearm pursuant to militia service and militia service alone.

^^^
This is a lie.

And as noted, with the advent of the states’ national guard, the notion of participating in a militia became moot, there is no Federal right to posses a firearm, where the states were at liberty to recognize and codify such a right at the state level – or not.

^^^
This is a lie.

Until Heller and McDonald.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its caselaw, as determined by the Supreme Court, and current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds that the Second Amendment right is an individual right unconnected with militia service, and a Federal right.

Wow. This -isn't- a lie.
Color me shocked.

Until that changes – through the amendment process or the judicial process where Heller and McDonald are overturned – there will be no assault weapon ban, no magazine capacity restrictions, and such state and local laws will be eventually struck down by the Supreme Court

Wow. This -isn't- a lie.
Color me shocked, twice.

, illustrating more hypocrisy from conservatives and their inconsistent advocacy of “states’ rights.”

THERE you go....
Your statement, above: A lie.

 

[yidnar]

If you had read the OP there is no suggestion to disarm the populace, none whatsoever.

frog in the boiling pot ... take a little at a time eh Rumphole ?

 

[task0778]

If a city or state did ban handguns, how many would obey it? IMHO, you would be making criminals out of ordinary citizens that would not give up their guns, in addition to the less law-abiding citizens. Are crooks, gang members, drug dealers and the like going to turn in their weapons? I don't think so. Some might reject the notion that a ban on guns would result in only the outlaws would have guns, but there is a kernal of truth in that. A lot of otherwise honest gun-owners wouldn't do it, which in effect makes them criminals for ignoring the handgun ban.

Would you also ban rifles and shotguns? You could kill a lot of people without needing a handgun.

How would such a ban be enforced? Some police depts around the country would refuse to enforce it, some already are. I don't see it as viable.

IMHO, the better answer to gun violence in this country is to do a better job with the background checks and go after the mental health professionals who do not flag someone as potentially dangerous. Some mass shootings should not have occurred due to mistakes or lax reporting of individuals who shouldn't be allowed to possess guns.

 

[Rumpole]

The Wild west had stricter gun control laws than we have today.

NRA Stick this where the sun don't shine!!!

In 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office.

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. -- The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Dodge City in 1878 (Wikimedia Commons)

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)
image: https://public-media.si-cdn.com/fil...d-4fac-8fc0-7ff859b10f21/mclauriesclanton.jpg
-

Watchingfromafar, thank you for your insightful and informative comment. It's fascinating to learn about the history of gun control in the Wild West and how it differed from what many people may imagine today. Your research highlights how even during those times, there was a recognition of the importance of striking a balance between individual rights to bear arms and maintaining public safety.

The examples you provided, such as Tombstone and Dodge City, demonstrate that there has always been a willingness to regulate firearms at a local level, adapting to the specific needs and circumstances of each community. This historical context supports the idea of allowing states and local jurisdictions more flexibility in regulating firearms, as proposed in the OP.

Your contribution to this discussion not only sheds light on an often-overlooked aspect of gun control history but also reinforces the importance of engaging in a well-informed and open-minded dialogue. By understanding the past and considering various perspectives, we can better navigate the complexities of the issue and work towards finding a solution that balances individual liberties with public safety.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Concerned American]

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West

But no more constitutional. Next.

 

[Concerned American]

history of gun control in the Wild West

Like the incidences of the history of racism that we hear so much about these days, these laws and bans were and are unconstitutional. The fact that they happened does not make them any more legal. Next.

Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

In the wake of the tragic murder of 17 innocent students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students, educators, politicians, and activists are searching for solutions to prevent future school shootings. As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it...

www.heritage.org

 

[Rumpole]

frog in the boiling pot ... take a little at a time eh Rumphole ?

Yidnar, I must admit, your amusing retort and creative respelling of my name did bring a chuckle. However, I'd like to clarify that the proposal in the essay does not advocate for a gradual path towards a total banning of firearms. Instead, it aims to strike a balance between individual rights and public safety by allowing states and local jurisdictions more flexibility in regulating firearms according to their specific needs.

The 'slippery slope fallacy' you mention assumes that taking one step in a certain direction will inevitably lead to an extreme outcome, which is not the intention of the original proposal. In fact, the proposal explicitly maintains certain guarantees for gun ownership, such as single shot bolt action rifles and handguns at the state level.

By fostering a constructive dialogue and considering various perspectives, we can work towards finding solutions that respect individual liberties while also addressing the need for public safety. It's important to remember that the goal of this conversation is to explore potential solutions, rather than to advocate for extreme measures.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Concerned American]

relatively similar for the licensing and regulation of automobiles

Not in the slightest. Been debated before. Auto licensing is a privilege, gun ownership is a right. You opinion that FL law re: CCW is insane, is noted and disregarded as fascist. The vast majority of gun related crime is committed by those who obtained the gun illegally. Suicide by firearm outnumbers homicides. Next.

Here Are 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America

In the wake of the tragic murder of 17 innocent students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students, educators, politicians, and activists are searching for solutions to prevent future school shootings. As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it...

www.heritage.org

 

[Concerned American]

advocate for extreme measures.

Au contraire. What you are advocating IS an extreme measure. You are attempting to limit the rights of millions of law-abiding firearms owners because of the actions of a GROSS minority of criminals and mentally ill.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In conclusion, it's important to acknowledge that gun violence is indeed a motivating factor in this discussion, but the broader context involves a range of considerations related to the interpretation, application, and modern relevance of the Second Amendment. By engaging in a respectful and open-minded conversation, we can work together to find solutions that balance public safety and individual rights in a way that serves the needs of our society.

It’s also important to acknowledge that the Constitution won’t be amended to repeal the Second Amendment.

Likewise, the Supreme Court won’t be ruling in a manner to change current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Consequently, the only recourse to address gun crime and violence will involve solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Flash. I understand that you have strong feelings about the Second Amendment and its importance in protecting liberty. While I respect your perspective, it's essential to remember that the Constitution is a living document, which has been amended and reinterpreted throughout the history of the United States to address evolving societal needs.

It's important to emphasize that the proposal discussed earlier does not advocate for abolishing the Second Amendment. Rather, it suggests amending it in a way that allows for a more nuanced approach to firearm regulation, while still maintaining guarantees for gun ownership. The goal is to engage in a constructive conversation about finding a balance between individual rights and public safety, without compromising the fundamental principles of the Constitution.

As for your concerns about crime and enforcement, it's worth noting that public safety is a multifaceted issue that requires the involvement of multiple stakeholders, including law enforcement, legislators, and communities. Addressing crime effectively involves not only enforcing existing laws but also exploring additional strategies and regulations that may help reduce violence.

I encourage us to continue engaging in a respectful dialogue that fosters understanding and respect for differing opinions. By doing so, we can work towards finding common ground and potential solutions that benefit everyone.

Cheers,
Rumpole

It still hasn't registered after all of my posts that not repealing the 2nd would create a conflict between your amendment and the 2nd? You cannot amend an amendment,

 

[Rumpole]

But no more constitutional. Next.

Good point, Concerned American. I appreciate your opinion, but, as I understand it,
the constitutionality of gun bans in the Old West primarily fell under the purview of state and local laws, rather than federal laws. During the 19th century, the Second Amendment was generally understood to apply only to the federal government, not to state or local governments. This interpretation allowed states and local jurisdictions to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including implementing gun bans or restrictions in some cases.

It wasn't until the 20th century, particularly with the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago, that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This incorporation meant that state and local governments would be subject to the same restrictions as the federal government in terms of infringing upon the right to bear arms.

One relevant case from the late 19th century is Presser v. Illinois (1886). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the state of Illinois' right to regulate militias and maintain restrictions on armed groups parading in public, which demonstrates that states had significant authority to regulate firearms during that time period. However, it is essential to note that Presser v. Illinois did not directly address the issue of gun bans in the Old West or their constitutionality.

In conclusion, the gun bans and restrictions of the Old West were considered constitutional at the time, as the Second Amendment was generally interpreted to apply only to the federal government. While there may not be specific court rulings addressing the constitutionality of these bans from the 19th century, the overall legal context allowed for state and local jurisdictions to regulate firearms according to their needs and circumstances.

Well, that's my understanding of the period...

Cheers,
Rumpole

"....Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --Matt, anonymous reviewer (goodreads.com) in his review of Adam Winker's historical/modern look entitled, 'Gun Fight" The battle about the right to bear arms in America.

 

[Oddball]

I realize this proposal is stirring up a proverbial hornet's nest, and the idea has about as much of a chance as catching a cloud with a fishnet. Nevertheless, I believe it is time to at least start the conversation. Think of this conversation as planting a seed. There is an old saying: "There is no idea like one whose time has come." I think this idea is just that – an idea whose time has come. And that idea is to amend the Second Amendment.

It is indeed a pressing concern to address the issue of gun violence in the United States, particularly when it comes to school shootings. While the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, the changing landscape of American society has led to calls for re-evaluating and amending this constitutional provision. The proposed "2A v.2" offers a nuanced approach to addressing this issue, allowing states to regulate guns as they see fit while still preserving the right to own firearms for specific purposes.

First, it is crucial to acknowledge that the context in which the Second Amendment was written has evolved significantly. The original intent of the framers was to ensure the ability of citizens to form a well-regulated militia, as a check against potential tyranny. However, as former Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens pointed out, the National Guard now serves the purpose of a militia, making the original rationale for the Second Amendment less applicable to modern society.

Second, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment balances the need for individual rights with public safety. It respects the right to own single-shot bolt action rifles for hunting, self-defense, and sustenance purposes, as well as the right to own handguns at the state level. These provisions acknowledge the cultural and historical significance of gun ownership in America, while providing a framework for states to enact regulations that reflect the values and needs of their citizens.

Third, by allowing cities the right to ban handguns, the proposed amendment recognizes the unique challenges urban areas face when it comes to gun violence. The density and diversity of city populations can contribute to higher rates of crime, and localized handgun bans may be an effective way to address this issue. This proposal also respects the principle of local control, empowering cities to implement solutions tailored to their specific circumstances. Note that in the old west, many small towns required residents, when entering the town's borders, to turn in their guns to the local sheriff's office, yet no one complained about the second amendment. Since the NRA has become such a central force in opposing any regulation of arms, which, in my view, their efforts make it difficult for states and municipalities to regulate arms as the see fit, as they see are needed for their state's circumstances, circumstances with vary, not only from state to state, but from region to region, I feel this is an idea whose time has come.

Finally, the proposed "2A v.2" amendment maintains the spirit of the Second Amendment while adapting it to address the modern reality of gun violence. It offers a flexible framework for states and cities to develop regulations that protect public safety without infringing on individual rights. By updating the Second Amendment in this way, the United States can work towards reducing the devastating impact of gun violence while still respecting the constitutional rights of its citizens.

Also note that since I am not an expert on rifles, my view on single-shot bolt action versus semi automatic rifles is not solidified in my proposal, and I remain open to arguments presented by experts on their reasoning for continuing to allow for semi-automatic rifles. Also note that the amendment allows states to allow for semi-automatics--remember, a constitutional amendment is not a ban whatsoever, it is just being amended to allow states more freedom to regulate without interference from, what I personally view as, second amendment radical groups such as the NRA. Obviously, the NRA and it's hard core believers will oppose this idea, and I expect that.

What argument I reject is the one that goes; "if you ban guns only criminals will have guns". I reject it given that since the stern regulation, the hurdles placed on the path to owning a fully automatic machine gun have vastly reduced crimes for that particular weapon, there are very view crimes committed with them. Remember, 'I am not an expert" and if my reasoning is faulty, I invite your arguments to the contrary, and, of course, that goes for this entire proposal. The details, I'm asserting, are subject to negotiation, but I do feel the time has come for an amendment to the second amendment, one that will allow states and cities more freedom to regulate arms as they see fit, for the needs or their states and municipalities.

In conclusion, although the idea of amending the Second Amendment may seem like a difficult conversation to initiate, it is essential to plant the seed of change in order to address the pressing issue of gun violence in the United States. The "2A v.2" proposal offers a balanced and nuanced approach that respects individual rights, public safety, and local control. By engaging in this conversation, we can explore potential solutions and work towards creating a safer society for all.

*So, ladies and gentlemen, "fire away" (with your affirmations, discussions, and debate/counter arguments. Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun ).

Humbly tendered,
Rumpole

**************************************************************​

*Caveat: rude comments, "TLDL" comments, snarky and lazy retorts, disingenuous comments, ad nauseum, will be ignored.

 

[Rumpole]

It’s also important to acknowledge that the Constitution won’t be amended to repeal the Second Amendment.

Likewise, the Supreme Court won’t be ruling in a manner to change current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Consequently, the only recourse to address gun crime and violence will involve solutions having nothing to do with the regulation of firearms.

Though I am in accord with your view, the only intent of the OP is to plant the seed of an idea, in the hope that, over time, it will root, grow, and achieve fruition, and of course, that will take time. Of course, it may never take root but I remain, always, an optimist.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[AZrailwhale]

An amendment to 2A renders your point moot. Amendments are allowed per the US Constitution.

Not at all, points raised which you have not adequately addressed, let alone refuted.

Amendments to the Constitution are allowed. Amendments can't be amended. Otherwise instead of passing the 21st Amendment, we could have just amended the 18th.

 

[Concerned American]

Old West primarily fell under the purview of state and local laws, rather than federal laws.

The same state and local overstep of authority continues today--and is STILL unconstitutional.

This interpretation

Their ignorance of the law by this wrong-headed interpretation is no excuse or reason.

It wasn't until the 20th century, particularly with the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago, that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This incorporation meant that state and local governments would be subject to the same restrictions as the federal government in terms of infringing upon the right to bear arms.

Nonsense. Link it.

Well, that's my understanding of the period...

Like your understanding of amending the constitution, it is flawed. The only way that your proposal could be accomplished is by repealing the second and amending the constitution again. One won't happen because the second would never be accomplished. BTW, apparently you didn't read my earlier post #91 and source.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Good point, Concerned American. I appreciate your opinion, but, as I understand it,
the constitutionality of gun bans in the Old West primarily fell under the purview of state and local laws, rather than federal laws. During the 19th century, the Second Amendment was generally understood to apply only to the federal government, not to state or local governments. This interpretation allowed states and local jurisdictions to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including implementing gun bans or restrictions in some cases.

It wasn't until the 20th century, particularly with the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago, that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This incorporation meant that state and local governments would be subject to the same restrictions as the federal government in terms of infringing upon the right to bear arms.

One relevant case from the late 19th century is Presser v. Illinois (1886). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the state of Illinois' right to regulate militias and maintain restrictions on armed groups parading in public, which demonstrates that states had significant authority to regulate firearms during that time period. However, it is essential to note that Presser v. Illinois did not directly address the issue of gun bans in the Old West or their constitutionality.

In conclusion, the gun bans and restrictions of the Old West were considered constitutional at the time, as the Second Amendment was generally interpreted to apply only to the federal government. While there may not be specific court rulings addressing the constitutionality of these bans from the 19th century, the overall legal context allowed for state and local jurisdictions to regulate firearms according to their needs and circumstances.

Well, that's my understanding of the period...

Cheers,
Rumpole

"....Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --Matt, anonymous reviewer (goodreads.com) in his review of Adam Winker's historical/modern look entitled, 'Gun Fight" The battle about the right to bear arms in America.

2010 is in the 21st century. How many of your facts are also wrong?