Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

sarisataka

(21,029 posts)
11. It doesn't refer only to firearms
Fri Jan 13, 2017, 03:48 PM
Jan 2017

Consider the text of the Uniform Militia Act, 1792-

every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack
"Arms" included the musket, items necessary to maintain it, ammunition, and gear to support using the weapon.

Knives- protected. Brass knuckles- no, the Court has previously ruled that only arms useful to militia service are protected. Nuclear bombs- no, arms above and beyond those used by a typical infantry soldier have always been the purview of the government controlling the militia.

When did the court rule it was a communal right? Constitutional scholars never believed it was anything but an individual right:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 1825

The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to "life, liberty, and property," to "keep and bear arms," to the "writ of habeas corpus" to "trial by jury," and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.
Timothy Farrar, Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America 1872

It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.
Judge Thomas Cooley Treatise 1880

Nor did the Supreme Court ever rule that the right to keep and bear arms was anything but an individual right.
Wrong discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2017 #1
um.. mac56 Jan 2017 #6
At the time of ratification sarisataka Jan 2017 #9
As my learned associate sarisataka has explained... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2017 #17
The Democratic party says the 2A supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. hack89 Jan 2017 #2
There is no basis to the popular myth needledriver Jan 2017 #3
You are right...the 2nd did NOT give the people the right to bear arms. jmg257 Jan 2017 #4
+1 Doug.Goodall Jan 2017 #13
errors in your reasoning jimmy the one Jan 2017 #29
Error in your reasoning: yagotme Jan 2017 #38
Never understood why sarisataka Jan 2017 #5
I believe the placement of the comma's yagotme Jan 2017 #7
+1 Doug.Goodall Jan 2017 #14
You overly complicated it in your "translation"... jmg257 Jan 2017 #8
Why does the word "arms" safeinOhio Jan 2017 #10
It doesn't refer only to firearms sarisataka Jan 2017 #11
taking rawle out of context jimmy the one Jan 2017 #30
Thank you for your support sarisataka Jan 2017 #33
sorry sari, wrong era webster's jimmy the one Jan 2017 #42
Cherry picking key words.. sarisataka Jan 2017 #44
It doesn't. Swords pistols accoutrements jmg257 Jan 2017 #12
Aw man. Ya' done opened up a can of worms now. Ya' done blasphemed flamin lib Jan 2017 #15
You mean Democratic Party talking points don't you? hack89 Jan 2017 #16
How many guns do you own, again? Or, shall I say, "cling to"? Marengo Jan 2017 #18
Your awkward question will no doubt go unanswered... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2017 #24
Might have saved yourself the effort. It's settled law now, at least for the foreseeable future. Marengo Jan 2017 #19
I just want to thank everyone for sharing their opinion.........n/t HAB911 Jan 2017 #20
You're welcome discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2017 #21
See post #19. It's a matter of *FACT* -- *not* opinion. NT pablo_marmol Jan 2017 #22
I just want to thank everyone for sharing their opinion.........n/t HAB911 Jan 2017 #23
I think there's an echo in here... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2017 #25
No, the bill of rights "gives" nothing. X_Digger Jan 2017 #26
original wording was for the militia interpretation jimmy the one Jan 2017 #27
I'm really surprised no one has claimed HAB911 Jan 2017 #28
I think Hamilton was 1 of the 1st..the militia is much more of a defensive notion against tyranny jmg257 Jan 2017 #35
LOL, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, HAB911 Jan 2017 #36
You'll have to find someone who said it did. This is Hamilton's quote. jmg257 Jan 2017 #37
See: yagotme Jan 2017 #39
LOL!...........n/t HAB911 Jan 2017 #41
british scholars weighed in, after heller jimmy the one Jan 2017 #31
story & oliver support the militia view jimmy the one Jan 2017 #32
"probably" sarisataka Jan 2017 #34
They don't count. yagotme Jan 2017 #40
another sorry attempt re founding father quotes on 2ndA jimmy the one Jan 2017 #43
In all of your extended quotes sarisataka Jan 2017 #45
In your quote below, yagotme Jan 2017 #46
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»How is Meatloaf's 'Id Do ...»Reply #11