Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
6. You do realize
Tue May 3, 2016, 05:44 PM
May 2016

That the "right" to keep and bear arms has been recognized since this country was founded, right? Here's a good quote from a Georgia Supreme Court case from 1846 (note that this court ultimately upheld the law that banned certain firearms):

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I, and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!


And here's the part upholding the law:

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

What was "carefully considered" by the politicians passing the bill guillaumeb May 2016 #1
That was a major victory sarisataka May 2016 #2
A major victory for fear and for the money purchasing SCOTUS Judges. guillaumeb May 2016 #3
. sarisataka May 2016 #4
..."for the money purchasing SCOTUS judges" Kang Colby May 2016 #5
You do realize TeddyR May 2016 #6
A carefull re-reading of my post will show that I was referring to SCOTUS guillaumeb May 2016 #8
Apologies for misreading your post TeddyR May 2016 #9
Again, after accepting your kind apology, the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of law. guillaumeb May 2016 #11
Ok TeddyR May 2016 #13
what centuries of SCOTUS precedent? gejohnston May 2016 #7
First, prior to DC v Heller, the established and accepted view was that the Second guillaumeb May 2016 #10
There's lots of scholarly articles TeddyR May 2016 #12
Please read my reply #10. It says it better than I can. eom guillaumeb May 2016 #14
Ok TeddyR May 2016 #15
your source lied by omission, gejohnston May 2016 #16
While that view had some degree of legal standing... Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #17
To characterize a unanimous SCOTUS decision as guillaumeb May 2016 #18
Ah, so they never bothered to rule on it because, well "everybody knows" DonP May 2016 #19
Research SCOTUS decisions prior to Heller and your claim of guillaumeb May 2016 #20
Yeah, that's too bad, like it or not you're still stuck with Heller and McDonald as the law DonP May 2016 #25
You couldn't be more wrong about the linguistic analysis. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #21
The clear language of the Second Amendment links a well regulated militia guillaumeb May 2016 #22
See above. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #23
The NRA would be quite proud. guillaumeb May 2016 #24
Ah, resorting to insult? Bye, Felicia. Lizzie Poppet May 2016 #26
Bull. beevul May 2016 #29
Where does the Second Amendment TeddyR May 2016 #30
unanimous only because gejohnston May 2016 #28
Not familiar sarisataka May 2016 #27
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Georgia governor to veto ...»Reply #6