Stephen Halbrook on the 2A

**Aguila Blanca** · December 18, 2022, 11:03 AM

Stephen Halbrook, one of the nation's most respected Second Amendment scholars, has written an article explaining why the scope and meaning of the 2A must be construed according to what the people who originally wrote it thought it meant, in 1791.

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/14...ond-amendment/

The basis of his line of thinking is that the fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868, didn't add anything to, take anything away from, or modify in any way the Second Amendment (or any of the fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights). The purpose of the 14th Amendment was, according to Halbrook, "to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."

The article puts those words inside quotation marks, which suggests that Halbrook is actually quoting someone or something from the discussion around adopting the 14th Amendment, but there's no footnote so I can't tell you who said or wrote that.

**Tom Servo** · December 19, 2022, 07:01 AM

The quote is from a speech given by Jacob Howard on the introduction of the 14th Amendment to Congress. He and John Bingham were the authors. We have abundant and clear records of what they meant and expected from it. The clause in question was ALWAYS meant to ensure the Bill of Rights was a universal baseline that states couldn't deny.

**Aguila Blanca** · December 19, 2022, 03:05 PM

Thank you, Tom Servo, for the addendum. It's good that someone knows this information. Hopefully some good attorneys somewhere will gather it all together and put it to good use.

**44 AMP** · December 20, 2022, 03:54 PM

I've no claim to being any kind of a scholar, but from where I sit, what I see is that the 14th Amendment neither adds or takes anything away from our fundamental natural rights, enumerated in the Constitution or those not actually written in that document.

It is yet another check on government actions, removing any previous "legal" separation between (former) slaves, or subject peoples making everyone born in the US, full and equal citizens, whom the govt is required to treat equally.

ALL levels of govt.

THis is the ideal, and a noble and valid one. The actual execution of this ideal has been less than perfect, or completely uniform, and we're still dealing with that, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is right to try to meet the idea. It is.

December 18, 2022, 11:03 AM	#1
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,466	Stephen Halbrook on the 2A Stephen Halbrook, one of the nation's most respected Second Amendment scholars, has written an article explaining why the scope and meaning of the 2A must be construed according to what the people who originally wrote it thought it meant, in 1791. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/12/14...ond-amendment/ The basis of his line of thinking is that the fourteenth amendment, which was adopted in 1868, didn't add anything to, take anything away from, or modify in any way the Second Amendment (or any of the fundamental rights in the Bill of Rights). The purpose of the 14th Amendment was, according to Halbrook, "to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees." The article puts those words inside quotation marks, which suggests that Halbrook is actually quoting someone or something from the discussion around adopting the 14th Amendment, but there's no footnote so I can't tell you who said or wrote that. __________________ NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic

December 19, 2022, 07:01 AM	#2
Tom Servo Staff Join Date: September 27, 2008 Location: Foothills of the Appalachians Posts: 13,059	The quote is from a speech given by Jacob Howard on the introduction of the 14th Amendment to Congress. He and John Bingham were the authors. We have abundant and clear records of what they meant and expected from it. The clause in question was ALWAYS meant to ensure the Bill of Rights was a universal baseline that states couldn't deny. __________________ Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe

December 19, 2022, 03:05 PM	#3
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,466	Thank you, Tom Servo, for the addendum. It's good that someone knows this information. Hopefully some good attorneys somewhere will gather it all together and put it to good use. __________________ NRA Life Member / Certified Instructor NRA Chief RSO / CMP RSO 1911 Certified Armorer Jeepaholic

December 20, 2022, 03:54 PM	#4
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,832	I've no claim to being any kind of a scholar, but from where I sit, what I see is that the 14th Amendment neither adds or takes anything away from our fundamental natural rights, enumerated in the Constitution or those not actually written in that document. It is yet another check on government actions, removing any previous "legal" separation between (former) slaves, or subject peoples making everyone born in the US, full and equal citizens, whom the govt is required to treat equally. ALL levels of govt. THis is the ideal, and a noble and valid one. The actual execution of this ideal has been less than perfect, or completely uniform, and we're still dealing with that, but that has no bearing on whether or not it is right to try to meet the idea. It is. __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.