In the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, we find greater explanation
Submitted by battleforce on Fri, 01/11/2013 - 06:14By Attorney Jonathan Emord
January 11, 2013
NewsWithViews.com
As the Vice President completes his report recommending to the President new federal legislation that will affect gun ownership, he likely will spend little, if any, time evaluating the constitutional limits on the power of the government to impose the prior restraints he thinks appropriate. We should be mindful of the Second Amendment’s intended meaning and should respect its Supreme law limits on the exercise of government power. The text of the Second Amendment reads:
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.
As explained below, the Second Amendment arose as a protection for the natural right of defense, both individual self-defense and collective defense, against acts in violation of individual right, acts of oppression, and insurrection and other attempts to subvert governments protective of liberty. Under Lockean rights theory, accepted as foundational by the founding generation, one may never be forced to part with the basic right of self-defense, particularly because, as the Declaration of Independence makes clear, insufferable governments that would deprive people of their rights to life, liberty, and property may give rise to a right of revolution. As the Declaration states: “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . .”
In his 1803 edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries, St. George Tucker distinguished the American constitutional model from British disarmament of the populace, explaining the American law to embrace the natural right of self-defense and defining that natural right as “the true palladium of liberty.” He explains: “ . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is . . . prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed . . .”
Continue Reading Here: http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan281.htm
- Login to post comments
So Right and So Wrong
How can someone be so right on his interpretation of what the Founders meant when the nation was formed and then be so wrong on how the law should be applied today?
Early on he states, "The weapons of the day for self-defense and defense of the state included not only the musket but also the cannon, and citizen militias in the states possessed both. Thus the weaponry protected by the Second Amendment’s language embraces not only weapons for individual self-defense but also for collective self-defense of the citizenry against acts of oppression and in defense of free governments". Then later he makes the argument that it only makes sense to outlaw private ownership of artillery and grenades. What does this guy believe?
Then there's this, "Today across the United States gun violence against individuals commonly involves use of automatic assault weapons". What demagoguery? Now he is saying shooters are using "automatic" weapons. Also if I'm not mistaken, the number of gun violence cases/deaths involving assault weapons in a minor subset of the total number of gun violence cases/deaths. Assault weapon violence is an anomaly not common. It's pretty sensational though.
I agree with his principle that a person can forfeit rights through due process. He makes the point, "criminal punishments that include bans on gun ownership are meted out consistent with due process which, after all, permits adjudication to take away all rights to life, liberty, and property commensurate with the offense." I wonder how he feels about all the non-violent felons who are not allowed firearm ownership for life. How does that fit with "commensurate with the offense"?
This guy seems like he's all for restrictions except for the ones he's against. What part of "shall not be infringed" doesn't this guy understand?
I think the same should apply for other country's also
Ither everybody has it or nobody has it.
Iran should have the right to have arms.
Russia should have the right.
The only people who shouldn't have a right is a sham federal entity that is full of corruption.
Maybe the states shoul have jurisdiction of the United States nuke stock pile to prevent our federal government from bucking the entire world.
We need to take away the right of the president to sign ex. Orders.
Take the nuke codes away from the pentagon.
Make it forbidden for the president to leave the country period.
Make it a law that if we goto war the president himself and all of congress are required to be the first people on the battlefield.
All politicians must attend state funded constitutional training at no pay for the 1st year of each of their terms.
See we can write our own rules too.
all forms of guns should be available to the public.
All other forms of weapons like artillery should still be available but regulated by a state run private militia that is funded privately only.
in fact our military should be the only group of people that actually needs heavy regulation.
They should be banned from having assault rifles unless they have been commissioned by a deputy shariff and only during times of war over seas.
And only then
And unless there is actual fighting going on should try be allowed to take the guns out of a Locker.
They should also be tagged and RFID.
Great article.
I like how he also adds the argument "...any attempt to ban assault weapons should be regarded as a violation of the Second Amendment, because one attacked by another with an assault weapon is largely incapable of effective self-defense unless he or she also possesses an assault weapon. Because assault weapons are ubiquitous in crimes across the nation, there is no sound argument that self-defense against such a threat could be satisfied with, say, a hand gun."
Government can't take the guns from the bad people. Why take it from the good people that are just defending themselves from the bad?
Thi guy is pretty much spot on
but I take issue with this interpretation... "Moreover, although prior restraints and burdens on gun ownership “infringe” on the right to keep and bear arms, the government may exercise a constitutional power to prohibit those adjudicated of a criminal offense, adjudicated insane, institutionalized for insanity, or adjudicated a threat to themselves or others from owning a weapon".
What "constitutional power" gives the government the authority to place restrictions upon constitutional rights and where is it enumerated? The slippery slope this allows the government to proceed upon opens the door to them classifying anyone they choose as fitting into one of the classes of individuals quoted. A traffic violation could be classified as a "criminal offense". Case in point, look at what kind of treatment returning Vets are receiving if they seek assistance for any type of stress related issue.
If not us than who?
"The right of self defense is the first law of nature"
That needs to be put out on bumper stickers.
Ron Paul supports a new 9-11 investigation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH9nOWnp5G0
Bump for Natural Rights :
Birds got beaks, Bees got stings, Bees can fly, Birds got wings.
Kitty claws for Doggies teeths, Without which there'd be no Peace.
The Constitution is a Trust : http://www.The-Legacy.Info