How the NRA Rewrote the 2nd Amendment -- The Founders never intended to create unregulated guns

[MarvinGardens]

66. The modern N.C. constitution added the qualifier

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2019, 06:24 AM - Edit history (1)

that the practice of carrying concealed weapons was not protected.

Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

I wonder why they felt the need to add that qualifier. They could have left in the old language, if it was just an uncontroversial old passage that, rather than protecting an individual right, instead weirdly protected the power of the state to do something they already had the power to do, which is to exercise their police power to keep order. Hmm.

But I'm glad you brought up the state constitutions. I can better understand the older view (which appeared in the World Book encyclopedia I had growing up) that the 2nd Amendment of the federal constitution existed to prevent the feds from disarming a state militia. But as the states can exercise the general police power as long as they do not run afoul of the federal and state constitutions, why do you suppose so many states felt the need to put such a clause in the "bill of rights" sections of their own constitutions? Were the early founders of those state governments concerned that the legislature would not arm their militias unless they were granted the "right" to do so (even though states don't have rights, they have powers)?

And also, several of the state constitutional clauses you quoted above clearly and unambiguously protect an individual right to bear arms for self defense. Specifically PA, VT, MA, NY. If the militia language in the federal and various state constitutions says anything, it says to me that not only do I have the right to possess arms that would be needed for defense of the state, but that the state has an obligation to train me in the use of said arms, so that I am "well regulated".

As to Miller, it was a narrow ruling that acknowledged that Congress had the power to prohibit the movement of sawed-off shotguns in interstate commerce. It is clear from reading it (as I had read it numerous times before the Heller decision) that it does not apply to weapons that would be useful for the common defense.

Also, as I stated in my prior post, my right and my privilege to keep a weapon does not rest solely on the 2nd Amendment. What do you think about my other arguments? As a refresher, the right to self defense is a natural unenumerated right, as natural as "you own yourself, and you own your own body"; and that my right to keep an instrument of self defense in my home is protected by the 4th amendment penumbra of privacy, and any attempt by government to invade that privacy ought to be invalid, the poison fruit of the poison tree. Details in my prior post.

Edits: Spelling.