2nd Amendment ---- and other superfluous provisions

[andyfox]

I'm not talking about a quote. I'm talking about Jefferson's proposed draft for a constitution for the state of Virginia. All it said was: No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms. (It was folowed by: There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war.) When that was rejected Jefferson changed it to: No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands]. That too was rejected.

[andyfox]

I assume that when OP said there is no relationship of contingency, he was saying that the second clause was not contingent on the application of the first to it. That is wrong both from the plain meaning of the sentence and the contemporary understanding of the meaning of bearing arms.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume that when OP said there is no relationship of contingency, he was saying that the second clause was not contingent on the application of the first to it. That is wrong both from the plain meaning of the sentence and the contemporary understanding of the meaning of bearing arms.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a relationship, and there is a cause; but that does not mean that there is a sole contingency.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that when Thomas Jefferson wanted to insure an individual right to possess personal weapons in Virgina (a proposal that was rejected), he wrote the proposed law as:

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."

The "right to bear arms" was known to refer to militia activity.

[/ QUOTE ]
The right to bear arms probably refers to militia activity. The right to keep arms probably means to right to posess weapons.

[andyfox]

To possess weapons for purposes of the civic obligation men had to be part of the militia. The subordinate clause talks about a militia; bearing arms refers to military uses. They would then stick in "keep" referencing personal usage right in the middle? Mustering was an obligation; each person had to supply his own weapon.

[andyfox]

Madison's initial formulation of the right to bear arms read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free coutnry; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The House of Representatives revised Madison's original formulation, placing the affirmation of a well-regulated militia before the right to keep and bear arms. The introductory clauses of statues were commonly understood by eighteenth-century lawyers to hold the key to the meaning of a law. Framing the right to bear arms as a corollary of a preamble focusing on the need for a well-regulated militia clearly signaled that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the militia. The House also added a clause describing the militia as "composed of the body of the people" and changed a semicolon to a comma, an editorial decision that linked the clauses containing the miltia and the right of the people more closely.

In the debate in the House over how to treat religious pacifists, reference to the miltia was paramount. Elbridge Gerry said that "whenever government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia." The British had "used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward." Gerry, one of the few Anti-Federalists to be elected to the House, did not mention any threat to the rights of individuals to use guns outside militia service.

Records of the Senate's deliberations do not survive. There is a surviving letter from Virginian John Randolph saying that a faction in "the Senate were for not allowing the militia arms."

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
It was in the early 1800s that people first tried to interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right. All of the discussion about it at the time of its proposed adoption concerned militias.

[/ QUOTE ]


This brings back to mind a long ago thread about the constitution being a 'living document'.

But this would be interesting to explore further - Why the reinterpretation? [or was it a reinterpretation? I assume that would be your contention? (added in edit)] Has a backdrop the history of state and citizen militia and how they evolved throughout US history is interesting and may have some bearing on the subject Militias, [scroll down to read entries by sources], or not.

-Zeno

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
Note that when Thomas Jefferson wanted to insure an individual right to possess personal weapons in Virgina (a proposal that was rejected), he wrote the proposed law as:

"No free man shall be debarred the use of arms."

The "right to bear arms" was known to refer to militia activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jefferson, as usual, had it right all along. He also had many enemies - the usually circumstances for free thinkers and espouses of individual liberties.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

According to historian Saul Cornell:

A profound change in the nature of American gun culture occurred in the early decades of the new [19th] century. Americans began sporting weapons designed primarily for personal self-defense. The expanding economy of the new century made a staggering array of these personal weapons readily available to consumers. In addition to pistols, there was a gruesome assortment of edged weapons, which were more reliable and hence more deadly than handguns. Sword canes, small daggers such as the dirk, or the fearsome knife that came to define the rough-and-tumble world of frontier life, the bowie knife rounded out the options available to those who wished to arm themselves with a dependable edged weapon. While many citizens outfitted themselves with these weapons, others recoiled at their countrymen's penchant for traveling armed and demanded that their legislatures take strong measures to regulate, and in some cases prohibit, this practice. The enactment of these early gun control statutes prompted a backlash that produced the first systematic defense of an individual right to bear arms in self-defense.

Kentucky passed the first law designed to curb the practice of carrying concealed weapons in 1813. Violation of the statues was punishable by a hefty fine of one hundred dollars. That same year, Louisiana passed an even more comprehensive act banning concealed weapons. Indiana adopted a ban on concelaed weapons in 1820. Said New York's Governor De Witt Clinton: "Our present criminal code does not sufficiently provide against the consequences which may result from carrying secret arms and weapons." In the ensuing decades, Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, and Ohio enacted laws against concealed weapons.

[andyfox]

Maybe Jefferson had it right and maybe he had it wrong. But what is certain is that what he had in mind was not in the mainstream of what the Framers of the Constitution and his fellow Virginians had in mind. And not what is in the Constitution.