4 ms·

That, too, is a revisionist take. Sure, earlier commentary concentrated on advantages of the militia, especially verses a standing army. But there is only limit

by wl 4y ago

That, too, is a revisionist take. Sure, earlier commentary concentrated on advantages of the militia, especially verses a standing army. But there is only limited discussion of the scope of the right prior to the 20th century. It was only with the development of federal regulation of guns with the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 that the question of whether or not the militia clause limited the right began to be discussed.

acdha 4y ago
There was less discussion about the second amendment itself because it was so linked to the militias in common understanding. Early American cities and states had laws restricting storage, banning concealed carry, requiring registration and/or taxation, etc. One really important thing to keep in mind is the distinction between what a rich, white property owner could do (i.e. not only own guns but be expected to furnish supplies for the militia in which they were likely an officer) and what, say, a poor or black person was allowed to do even though they were ostensibly equal under the law. I'm not saying there wasn't plenty of allowed activities but that the concept of this being an unrestricted right goes back to roughly the second half of the previous century.
- notch656a 4y ago
  >the concept of this being an unrestricted right goes back to roughly the second half of the previous century. From a federal perspective this is laughably disingenuous. The strongest federal gun control is the GCA and NFA. In 1920 you could mail order a machine gun. The bill of rights weren't even fully incorporated to apply to the states until later in the republic, such as when the 14th amendment was passed. So it's disingenuous to characterize 19th century restrictions as representations of statutes in compliance the 2nd, when the 2nd didn't even necessarily apply to local/state governments at that time.
  - acdha 4y ago
    Again, the point is that for the first couple centuries it was not considered controversial that there could be restrictions. People might disagree on the exact details but few people thought there couldn’t be any restrictions prior to that becoming a major political rallying point in the late 1970s.
    - a4a4a4a4 4y ago
      Have you seen the sorry excuses for “historical precedent” that NYS dug up for Antonyuk v Hochul? https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/new-york-gun-law-temporary-restraining-order/97cb10daaf586bfc/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/new-york-gun-law-temp... This was filed by the State. Search the word “negro” to find their justification for character references. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/07/preliminary-injunction-against-new-york-bans-on-licensed-carry/ https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/07/preliminary-injunction-... For a summary and explanation.

by wl 4y ago

acdha 4y ago

There was less discussion about the second amendment itself because it was so linked to the militias in common understanding. Early American cities and states had laws restricting storage, banning concealed carry, requiring registration and/or taxation, etc. One really important thing to keep in mind is the distinction between what a rich, white property owner could do (i.e. not only own guns but be expected to furnish supplies for the militia in which they were likely an officer) and what, say, a poor or black person was allowed to do even though they were ostensibly equal under the law. I'm not saying there wasn't plenty of allowed activities but that the concept of this being an unrestricted right goes back to roughly the second half of the previous century.

notch656a 4y ago
>the concept of this being an unrestricted right goes back to roughly the second half of the previous century. From a federal perspective this is laughably disingenuous. The strongest federal gun control is the GCA and NFA. In 1920 you could mail order a machine gun. The bill of rights weren't even fully incorporated to apply to the states until later in the republic, such as when the 14th amendment was passed. So it's disingenuous to characterize 19th century restrictions as representations of statutes in compliance the 2nd, when the 2nd didn't even necessarily apply to local/state governments at that time.
- acdha 4y ago
  Again, the point is that for the first couple centuries it was not considered controversial that there could be restrictions. People might disagree on the exact details but few people thought there couldn’t be any restrictions prior to that becoming a major political rallying point in the late 1970s.
  - a4a4a4a4 4y ago
    Have you seen the sorry excuses for “historical precedent” that NYS dug up for Antonyuk v Hochul? https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/new-york-gun-law-temporary-restraining-order/97cb10daaf586bfc/full.pdf https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/new-york-gun-law-temp... This was filed by the State. Search the word “negro” to find their justification for character references. https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/07/preliminary-injunction-against-new-york-bans-on-licensed-carry/ https://reason.com/volokh/2022/11/07/preliminary-injunction-... For a summary and explanation.