Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today

[AZrailwhale]

People valued life much more. Suicide and murder were less common.

Murder was relatively common, but thanks to the death penalty recidivism

First time?

yep

 

[watchingfromafar]

When cities and towns had their own gun laws shootings were rare occurrence. Today with the fed making gun ownership open to anyone deaths went on the rise & are still climbing.

What Dodge City was able to accomplish is now just a foot note in our history books. -

 

[watchingfromafar]

Murder was relatively common

no, it was not -

 

[2aguy]

When cities and towns had their own gun laws shootings were rare occurrence. Today with the fed making gun ownership open to anyone deaths went on the rise & are still climbing.

What Dodge City was able to accomplish is now just a foot note in our history books. -

They didn't accomplish anything...normal people with guns weren't shooting people back then, and the criminals still carried their guns no matter what the law said......

We have gun murder now because in democrat party controlled cities, the out of wedlock birthrate among black Americans is over 75%...no fathers in the homes.....young black males make up 7% of the population, but over 50% of the murder rate and are victims of murder over 50% of the time as well....if not more....

We don't have a gun problem, we have a democrat party problem.

 

[watchingfromafar]

We don't have a gun problem, we have a democrat party problem.

-----------------------------------We have a republicon lying bunch of stupide scumbags
-

 

[Concerned American]

-----------------------------------We have a republicon lying bunch of stupide scumbags
-

We have a fool watchingfromafar.

 

[Abatis]

I did not know you were such an historian

Sez the scholar quoting Wikipedia as a source.

Gun control is nothing new. Way back in the day of the cowboy’s gun control was tougher than it is today

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution originally only protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms -- from the actions of the federal government only.

In the history you cite, the 2nd Amendment had no impact or effect on gun laws enacted by any state, county, city or town enactments (including laws enacted in territories, before they became states).

IOW, as a matter of law NOW, those laws are meaningless.

In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.

Well, that's a pile of crap.

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old West

. . .

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.”

All true but that says nothing about the 2nd Amendment.

What has changed from then to now??
-

Quite a lot.

Biggest of course was McDonald v Chicago in 2010 when SCOTUS held that the right o arms, as recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment, is a "fundamental right" and was incorporated against the states under he 14th Amendment. Essentially that means the belief that all those state and local laws were "permissible" under the 2nd Amendment, was no longer a legitimate presumption.

As is often said, 'see you in court!'

 

[watchingfromafar]

Well, that's a pile of crap.

In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, exclusively for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right.

Heller, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 2008, held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.
Key People: Antonin Scalia
Date: June 26, 2008
Location: United States
District of Columbia v. Heller | Summary, Ruling, & Facts

sniff this -

 

[Abatis]

sniff this -

Your copy and pastey and boldy clicky ability is average, your understandy, thinky and explainy ability is poor.


Heller was not "the first time" the Supreme Court affirmed that the RKBA belongs to individuals . . . Look at United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) where the Court recognized that two former slaves, then US citizens, possessed the right to carry guns for self defense in public, and that right was not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus was not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Heller re-affirmed Cruikshank:

"Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his 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 … .”"​

​

(italics in original)​

Nor did Heller hold that the RKBA was limited, "exclusively for self-defense in the home". The Court wasn't endorsing "in the home" as a limitation on the RKBA, the Court was invalidating the DC law which prohibited the use of “functional firearms within the home”. Tha enire line of crap was totally buried in the recent oral arguments in the NYSRPA case, both NY state and the US government conceded that Heller affirmed that the 2ndA secures a right to carry guns for self defense outside he home. Please try to keep up . . .

Heller did say "the right is not unlimited" but that doesn't mean the government's power to limit gun possession and use is unlimited.

Anti-gunners always herald Heller's mention of "certain long-standing prohibitions" but the Court isn't declaring those exemplary laws to be constitutional or unconstitutional, only that Heller did not review them.

You anti-gunners always leave off the footnote of that paragraph and that footnote has been the legally significant statement. Lower courts have been consistent saying that the part you quote and claim, is not a definitive statement of constitutionality . . .

Because SCOTUS said (in Heller's footnote 26) those laws are merely "presumptively lawful", that presumption may be challenged and rebutted, two examples:

"The government has approached this case as though all it had to do to defend the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is invoke Heller’s language about certain “presumptively lawful” gun regulations—notably, felon-dispossession laws. Not so. Heller held that the Second Amendment secures an individual natural right to possess firearms for self-defense; the opinion’s reference to exceptions cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. . . ." -- US v. Skoien, No. 08-3770, (7th Cir. 2009)​

​

____________________​

​

"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted." -- U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011)​

Your copy and paste ends with a bald attempt to deceive and mislead when it says, "State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right."

That statement, while legally true, is not from Heller although reading it as the closing of a paragraph about Heller would lead one to believe that.

The actual nature of the statement is being corrupted here . . . As presented here, it is intended to be read as endorsing the preceding incorrect and misleading statements about Heller and seeks to extend those statements as sustaining "state and local laws" on guns instead of invalidating them.

The actual effect of McDonald extends the 2nd Amendment's limits on government power on the states, not your perverted interpretation of Heller seemingly endorsing gun control.

 

[2aguy]

Your copy and pastey and boldy clicky ability is average, your understandy, thinky and explainy ability is poor.


Heller was not "the first time" the Supreme Court affirmed that the RKBA belongs to individuals . . . Look at United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) where the Court recognized that two former slaves, then US citizens, possessed the right to carry guns for self defense in public, and that right was not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus was not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

Heller re-affirmed Cruikshank:

"Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his 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 … .”"​

​

(italics in original)​

Nor did Heller hold that the RKBA was limited, "exclusively for self-defense in the home". The Court wasn't endorsing "in the home" as a limitation on the RKBA, the Court was invalidating the DC law which prohibited the use of “functional firearms within the home”. Tha enire line of crap was totally buried in the recent oral arguments in the NYSRPA case, both NY state and the US government conceded that Heller affirmed that the 2ndA secures a right to carry guns for self defense outside he home. Please try to keep up . . .

Heller did say "the right is not unlimited" but that doesn't mean the government's power to limit gun possession and use is unlimited.

Anti-gunners always herald Heller's mention of "certain long-standing prohibitions" but the Court isn't declaring those exemplary laws to be constitutional or unconstitutional, only that Heller did not review them.

You anti-gunners always leave off the footnote of that paragraph and that footnote has been the legally significant statement. Lower courts have been consistent saying that the part you quote and claim, is not a definitive statement of constitutionality . . .

Because SCOTUS said (in Heller's footnote 26) those laws are merely "presumptively lawful", that presumption may be challenged and rebutted, two examples:

"The government has approached this case as though all it had to do to defend the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9) is invoke Heller’s language about certain “presumptively lawful” gun regulations—notably, felon-dispossession laws. Not so. Heller held that the Second Amendment secures an individual natural right to possess firearms for self-defense; the opinion’s reference to exceptions cannot be read to relieve the government of its burden of justifying laws that restrict Second Amendment rights. . . ." -- US v. Skoien, No. 08-3770, (7th Cir. 2009)​

​

____________________​

​

"As the Government concedes, Heller’s statement regarding the presumptive validity of felon gun dispossession statutes does not foreclose Barton’s as-applied challenge. By describing the felon disarmament ban as “presumptively” lawful, the Supreme Court implied that the presumption may be rebutted." -- U.S. v. Barton, 633 F.3d 168 (3d Cir. 2011)​

Your copy and paste ends with a bald attempt to deceive and mislead when it says, "State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right."

That statement, while legally true, is not from Heller although reading it as the closing of a paragraph about Heller would lead one to believe that.

The actual nature of the statement is being corrupted here . . . As presented here, it is intended to be read as endorsing the preceding incorrect and misleading statements about Heller and seeks to extend those statements as sustaining "state and local laws" on guns instead of invalidating them.

The actual effect of McDonald extends the 2nd Amendment's limits on government power on the states, not your perverted interpretation of Heller seemingly endorsing gun control.

Bravo....Bravo.....

Thank you.....excellent work....