National Magazines over 10 rounds were well-known to the Founders

[RicInOR]

Magazines over 10 rounds were well-known to the Founders

Read More

 

[CountryGent]

 

[titsonritz]

The concept and desire was there long before the capability.

 

[ma96782]

And, they knew what.....

".....shall not be infringed."

MEANT.

Aloha, Mark

 

[DivCurlGrad72]

If historical firearms research like this shuts down one more attempted line of attack on the second amendment by anti-rights activists, then that's fine. But I don't like being drawn into an argument about trying to prove a thing is protected because it was in existence at the time of the founding, and then having that later become the precedent. It's like the "common use" argument for determining whether or not a firearm is constitutionally protected. Where in the constitution is this concept to be found? Nowhere.

Again, from D.C. v. Heller:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

 

[CountryGent]

But I don't like being drawn into an argument about trying to prove a thing is protected because it was in existence at the time of the founding, and then having that later become the precedent.

Bingo! In my humble opinion, one of the most intensely stupid arguments against the 2A is that "it didn't exist at the time of the Bill of Rights". mkay, let's discuss the 1A, shall we? The typewriter, Morse code, Internet porn, cable TV, the telegraph, Mormonism, photography, airmail, stupid performance art, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fortune cookie notes, ham radio, et al., all postdate 1A and they are all protected forms of expression.

 

[Hueco]

Bingo! In my humble opinion, one of the most intensely stupid arguments against the 2A is that "it didn't exist at the time of the Bill of Rights". mkay, let's discuss the 1A, shall we? The typewriter, Morse code, Internet porn, cable TV, the telegraph, Mormonism, photography, airmail, stupid performance art, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fortune cookie notes, ham radio, et al., all postdate 1A and they are all protected forms of expression.

Exactly.

The bill of rights is a codified ethos that is much more complex than its simple words and transcends both time and simplistic explanations that do not account for for historical context and intent behind those rights.

The ethos of 1A is that every person has the right to assemble with anyone of their choice, that they have the right to protest grievances with no ill repercussion from the government, that they may practice whatever religion they choose and that they may say or print any critique of the government that they may fathom. That ethos transcends medium of communication.

The ethos of 2A is most obviously that the citizenry of a free nation must have the capability of defending themselves from a foreign government or a domestic government that overextends itself from its own responsibilities into the rights of man...and that defense is contingent upon the greatest equalizer of men ever invented: arms. This ethos transcends medium of defense.

Both of these ethos transcend time.

Anyone arguing that the government could never be tyrannical is both naive and disproved by history.

The Republic had the Jedi to look after it and still it fell. It may be a work of fiction but it's pretty darn accurate in this regard...No mater how pure the local defense of a free people, the people are always in danger of a tyrant. The resistance only existed and only triumphed because of its ability to obtain weapons and the people both willing and skilled enough to use them.

Throughout the history of man, the commoner has been a peasant whose life was defined by his tribal leader/lord/noble/king. Up until 1765, your family tree grew each branch only by both the grace of God and the grace of a lord. After that, it's between you and God and you and the world, such that your family line branched into the States.

There is no future where I give up ownership of my family and my posterity's destiny to some conglomeration of nitwits with no respect for me as an individual (otherwise known as a government).

 

[awshoot]

Bingo! In my humble opinion, one of the most intensely stupid arguments against the 2A is that "it didn't exist at the time of the Bill of Rights". mkay, let's discuss the 1A, shall we? The typewriter, Morse code, Internet porn, cable TV, the telegraph, Mormonism, photography, airmail, stupid performance art, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, fortune cookie notes, ham radio, et al., all postdate 1A and they are all protected forms of expression.

McDonald did away with the "if it didn't exist ..." argument, at least insofar as people were saying the 2A only protects muskets. However, under Heller, the historical research is important because one of the arguments Antis can use is that a regulation is long standing in the law. So for example, a regulation that existed at the time the Constitution and BOR was being written, would have a greater chance of surviving judicial scrutiny (and the converse is true, a more recent regulatory scheme has less liklihood of surviving). The history is also important so that the pro side can argue that the regulation under review, was one contemplated by the 2A because the drafters had awareness of things beyond single shot muzzleloaders, and wrote the 2A anyway. This is why so much of the current litigation has affidavits from firearms historians bringing these facts to light.

Think of it in the context of Miller -- SCOTUS at the time had nobody telling it that short barrelled shotguns had useful military purposes even though there were commercial SBSs (*) on the market since at least 1922 (pre-NFA) to protect against highway robbery (a real thing back then) -- it would not be a stretch to argue that such weapons had a military purpose. The Miller case concludes by upholding the NFA because nobody brought up actual factual history.

So I would say, history is important here.

(*)