The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

View Poll Results: What does 2A protect?
Your right to bear arms fit to resist a tyrranical government domestic or foreign(Homeland Defense) 30 65.22%
Hunting, Self defense, home defense, and Homeland defense 16 34.78%
Voters: 46. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 16, 2009, 10:00 PM   #1
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
Does the second amendment protect your right to carry?

This conversation is entirely theoretical. Anyone posting it is impossible to distinguish between a pistol possessed for protection against a tyrannical government from one to protect from criminals is off topic.

From the text of the second amendment and my readings of our founding fathers I limit my interpretation of the second amendment to ownership and possession of firearms necessary to protect against tyrannical government. In my mind this does not relate to Hunting, or even home defense. It only pertains to homeland defense. I am not saying that those are not rights, just that they fall under the 9a not 2a. These other rights also seem to fall under common sense to me, but that doesn't seem to count for much in Washington.

Not what you wish it was meant for, what you actually think was the intent of the amendment
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 10:47 PM   #2
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
I dont understand either the poll questions or your OP

WildsorryAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old March 16, 2009, 10:51 PM   #3
Storm52
Member
 
Join Date: March 2, 2009
Location: Shreveport, La.
Posts: 85
No

The Constitution does not mention concealed carry, therefore those rights not delineated by Federal law, are resolved by the individual states.
I'm not real clear on your question or position as I can interpret your remark to mean that gun ownership is allowed only to secure a free state against tyranny. Security of a free state as written in the Constitution, includes my state of security, including self defense, home defense and those dependent upon me. IMHO
Storm52 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 08:00 AM   #4
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
I don't want to get into where the protection of you right to bear arms for the purpose of hunting, self defense, and home defense, might be protected or reserved, just whether or not you believe it is in the second amendment or not.

Is the Second Amendment limited to "homeland defense" or does it cover all facets of firearm ownership.

Quote:
Security of a free state as written in the Constitution, includes my state of security, including self defense, home defense and those dependent upon me.
So you think the Federal government has responsibility to protect you from domestic non-state actors?
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; March 17, 2009 at 08:12 AM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 08:08 AM   #5
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
Maybe I should point out where I am going with this.
If 2A is limited to "homeland defense," is it still in existence at all? Are any federal policy decisions made with any respect the homeland defense aspect of gun ownership.
If you went to congress and said this bill should not be passed because it impeded on my right to protect myself from tyrannical governments foreign and domestic would you get anything but laughter?

I am really starting to believe this country needs a constitutional convention.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; March 17, 2009 at 08:15 AM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 09:45 AM   #6
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
If 2A is limited to "homeland defense," is it still in existence at all?
That would lead to I think a discussion of the militia. Long thread already done here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=342370and here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...d.php?t=337107 so you can read a lot of discussion about "homeland defense". The antigunners argued that the RKBA was tied to service in the militia and since the militia is defunct then the states and Fed could pass any gun laws they wanted. They had several law cases to back that up too. However, Heller saved the day by decoupling the militia part of the clause from the individual right and recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms apart from service in the militia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
If you went to congress and said this bill should not be passed because it impeded on my right to protect myself from tyrannical governments foreign and domestic would you get anything but laughter?
No, and probably add fear to that mix as you would be viewed as a kook deserving attention and observation from LE agencies.

Also, to answer your question about CCW. I would say the state of law now is No. CCW is enacted by states not the Fed and IIRC the 2A hasn't been incorporated which means that it only applies to Federal law not State law. So, if a State says no CCW, the Federal court would not overturn it on 2A grounds. However, we have discussed that the 10th Amendment might keep the Fed from outlawing CCW by law.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.

Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; March 17, 2009 at 09:51 AM.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 09:47 AM   #7
Mr Odd Six
Junior member
 
Join Date: March 17, 2009
Location: Washingrad not DC
Posts: 133
The second has NOTHING to do with hunting, never has, never will.
Mr Odd Six is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 09:58 AM   #8
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
Tennessee Gentleman, I agree with your analysis of the current legal environment and interpretation of 2A.

I want to know if you think 2A was meant to be interpreted that way or not. Whether 2A is tied to militia service or not is irrelevant.
In your opinion does 2A include these other uses of firearms or not? Or is it just for Homeland Defense
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 10:03 AM   #9
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062
In your opinion does 2A include these other uses of firearms or not?
Not sure what you mean by "other uses". I do believe it was written to insure that all citizens have a right to personal self defense but am not sure what you mean beyond that.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 10:50 AM   #10
Water-Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 23, 2008
Location: N. Georgia
Posts: 1,548
He told you what other uses!!!!
__________________
PROUD TO BE A VETERAN
Water-Man is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 11:13 AM   #11
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
hunting, home defense, personal defense, and I will throw in collecting at this point.
I want the opinions of members of this board concerning the original intent, not their legal analysis of the current legal environment.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 11:32 AM   #12
Cerick
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2008
Location: 973, NJ
Posts: 331
The second amendment doesn't say "the right to bear arms" it says "the right to keep and bear arms." Keep is to own. Bear is to carry. No?
Cerick is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 11:42 AM   #13
sholling
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 18, 1999
Location: Hemet (middle of nowhere) California
Posts: 4,260
Where is the all of the above choice?
__________________
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.
sholling is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 11:45 AM   #14
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
You are right, I don't follow the relevance unless you are arguing(maybe just pointing out the possibility) the amendment, by the inclusion of keep, extends to collectors while the bear section may not include hunting, SD, or HD.
I doubt the original intent of the inclusion of the word "keep" was to protect collectors, but I think there could be some strong legal ground there.

I am not saying the founding fathers would not have protected those rights had they thought of it, just that they don't seem to have done so in my opinion.
I doubt any of the founding fathers ever thought the right of a citizen to hunt with a firearm would ever be endangered.


http://www.bustedtees.com/secondamendment

The second choice includes the first choice. The first choice is limited, the second is not.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread

Last edited by johnwilliamson062; March 17, 2009 at 11:53 AM.
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 12:16 PM   #15
mtnm
Member
 
Join Date: March 14, 2009
Location: old Lolo trail
Posts: 37
"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. "

My college history teacher argued that we do not have a right to keep and bear arms, because we no longer need a militia for defense.

Finland was invaded by Russia during WW2. The Finnish people went to the woods with their hunting rifles and defeated the Russian army with gurilla warfar. They shot one bullet at the leader of the tank convoy...

IMO Hunting is great or nessaceary or very important pre-warfare training.

"Not what you wish it was meant for, what you actually think was the intent of the amendment "

To understand the intent of our fathers, you have to think like they did.

Anyone who did keep and bear arms back then hunted and killed livestock for butchering. We were a rural nation back then. Why write in detail how to breath?

If I am to keep my free state secure, I must eat, and I must train, IMO>
Hunting is part of training; and eating.

Just imagine George Washington telling Americans, yes you can have a gun- but it's only one intended use is for homeland security.

IMO of course, I have to vote for option 2.
mtnm is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 01:19 PM   #16
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
I see the point about hunting and the guerrilla warfare common to revolutions and resistance being linked. I would guess you would then also say the 2A protects your right to hunt, not just the right to maintain the weapons you use to hunt. As in a state outlawing deer hunting would be infringing on your 2A rights. Possibly harvest limits are infringements? I do not agree. This conclusion starts to broaden the 2A nearly to the extent of the interstate commerce clause. I think very few of us like where that has gone.

As far as I know the British never tried to control small arms prior to the beginning of the revolution. They only attempted to control artillery. During the Revolution I think their only controls were on Brown Bess rifles that were being picked up on the battlefield and provided by British defectors. I am not sure about this, I have never looked into the subject in detail.

The 2A was, I believe, put into place to protect military style weapons, specifically cannons. If that is not practical today then the amendment needs to be rewritten.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 03:11 PM   #17
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 551
Yes, it does.

The essence of 2A is self-defense against predation small, medium or large, the petty thug, local gangs, government agents...

"Arms", "keep" and "bear" are terms of art that predate 2A by several hundred years in literature and law related to the personal and human right to effective self-defense. The earliest laws related to, in some cases, members of a particular religion who could keep and bear arms against individual harassment by members of other religions. The analog to concealed carry in current times is something only an ideologue could not recognize, but I do have hard feelings in the matter.

If you have an unrestricted right as an individual to effective self-defense, you must have the right to transport that means to whatever place you may need it, broadly brushed. Since no amount of written law can determine where this might be, concealed carry about anywhere is, or should be, considered a basic premise in light of 2A.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 03:32 PM   #18
gretske
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Lake Murray, SC
Posts: 182
Quote:
As far as I know the British never tried to control small arms prior to the beginning of the revolution.
Actually, it was the attempt by British Gen. Thomas Gage in April, 1775 to seize a cache of small arms at Concord, MA that started the American Revolution. Prior to that, British troops regularly disarmed citizens whenever the opportunity arose. Since they quartered their troops among the citizenry, they used this as a convenient excuse to disarm them. To avoid this, and other problems, the Third Amendment forbids the quartering of troops.
gretske is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 03:47 PM   #19
KSFreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,416
No, the right of self-defense is covered by the Ninth Amendment. Carrying firearms in defense of yourself was never doubted or questioned by the Framers.

Carrying a gun in defense of self was seen as your right to draw air. Something every free man was allowed.

Quote:
The 2A was, I believe, put into place to protect military style weapons, specifically cannons.
Yes, but not specifically cannons. "Bearing" was defined then as something individually portable.
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).
KSFreeman is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 03:49 PM   #20
KSFreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,416
British gun regulations in the colonies had a long history prior to the War for Independence. I suggest Clayton Cramer's Armed America for further study:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/ima...283155&s=books

HTH
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).

Last edited by KSFreeman; March 17, 2009 at 03:56 PM.
KSFreeman is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 03:55 PM   #21
johnwilliamson062
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 6,810
Quote:
...with utmost expedition and secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and destroy... all Military stores... But you will take care that the soldiers do not plunder the inhabitants or hurt private property.
I think if you look at the issue in detail you will see the British went to a lot of trouble not to seize the personal arms of colonists. What was at concord was stock piles of powder and lead ball. They were also specifically after artillery pieces that were stored there, supposedly buried, although likely not in PVC. Specifically several pieces that would have been effective in the bombarding Boston. Of all that the British did that day, the only thing they really destroyed or concentrated on were these pieces of heavy artillery. Soldiers that found other caches of musket balls etc. destroyed them, but the British were there for the cannons.

I have never seen anything to indicate that there were personal firearms seized from families responsible for quartering troops. On multiple occasions defectors traded their brown bess for passage out of Boston and colonists got tied up in treason charges.
__________________
$0 of an NRA membership goes to legislative action or court battles. Not a dime. Only money contributed to the NRA-ILA or NRA-PVF. You could just donate to the Second Amendment Foundation
First Shotgun Thread First Rifle Thread First Pistol Thread
johnwilliamson062 is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 03:58 PM   #22
gretske
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Lake Murray, SC
Posts: 182
One of the best analysis ever written about the meaning of the Second Amendment is in Justice Scalia's very thorough and definitive majority decision in the Heller case. You can get a copy here.
You might also look at the dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens, who has apparently never heard of the Constitution.
gretske is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 04:10 PM   #23
gretske
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Lake Murray, SC
Posts: 182
Quote:
I have never seen anything to indicate that there were personal firearms seized from families responsible for quartering troops.
Look at "The Founders' Second Amendment, Origins of the Right to Bear Arms" by Stephen P. Halbrook (2008).
Quote:
Just after Adams' editorial was published, it was reported in February 1769 that the inhabitants of Boston were being disarmed. After noting that "part of the troops had been quartered in the castle and barracks, and the remainder of them in some old empty houses," the report continued: "That the inhabitants had been ordered to bring in their arms, which in general they had complied with: and that those in possession of any after the expiration of a notice given them, were to take the consequences."
(page 18)
There are other references to the relationship between quartering of soldiers and arms seizures in the first chapter of the book.
gretske is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 04:10 PM   #24
KSFreeman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 9, 2001
Location: Lafayette, Indiana--American-occupied America
Posts: 5,416
Quote:
I think if you look at the issue in detail you will see the British went to a lot of trouble not to seize the personal arms of colonists.
john, I recommend Stephan Halbrook's A Right to Arms: http://www.amazon.com/Right-Bear-Arm...324133&sr=1-6#

You may come to a different conclusion.
__________________
"Arguments of policy must give way to a constitutional command." Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 602 (1980).
KSFreeman is offline  
Old March 17, 2009, 04:25 PM   #25
gretske
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Location: Lake Murray, SC
Posts: 182
Jinx!
gretske is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13828 seconds with 10 queries