- Messages
- 17,471
- Reactions
- 36,484
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_turns_on_english_laws_of_1328_and_1689.html
"... medieval English laws matter in legal debates about gun control in the United States today. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, determined that sufficiently "long-standing" firearms regulations are constitutional. This means that in Second Amendment cases, we have to get our English history right.
Doing so is crucial in a gun case now before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals: Wrenn v. D.C. The case is critical for Washington residents but also more broadly as the pro-gun lobby challenges laws in cities across the country. The District of Columbia argues that English and American law has always permitted restrictions on the right to carry guns in populated public places, tracing this tradition to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which generally prohibited carrying guns in public. The District argues that the Second Amendment and its English precursors did not allow unfettered public carrying in densely populated cities, and thus the District may restrict it.
A group of legal historians has disputed this interpretation in an amicus brief filed this month, followed by an essay in the Washington Post by David Kopel, adjunct professor at Denver University's law school. They claim the English Bill of Rights of 1689 superseded the 1328 statute and that, "There was a lot of weapons-carrying in England." Thus, they conclude, D.C. residents have the right to carry guns in public. But their English history is wrong, as are their conclusions about public carry in the nation's capital. "
" 1688–89 ... , including a provision guaranteeing Protestants (but not Catholics or Jews) the right to bear arms. "
" By all means, let us learn from this English past: It did not include the unqualified right of an individual to carry arms in public."
"Priya Satia is a professor of British history at Stanford University."
More:
https://goo.gl/1RvWFs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-on-history-of-right-to-carry-in-wrenn-v-dc/
"... medieval English laws matter in legal debates about gun control in the United States today. The Supreme Court's landmark 2008 Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, determined that sufficiently "long-standing" firearms regulations are constitutional. This means that in Second Amendment cases, we have to get our English history right.
Doing so is crucial in a gun case now before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals: Wrenn v. D.C. The case is critical for Washington residents but also more broadly as the pro-gun lobby challenges laws in cities across the country. The District of Columbia argues that English and American law has always permitted restrictions on the right to carry guns in populated public places, tracing this tradition to the 1328 Statute of Northampton, which generally prohibited carrying guns in public. The District argues that the Second Amendment and its English precursors did not allow unfettered public carrying in densely populated cities, and thus the District may restrict it.
A group of legal historians has disputed this interpretation in an amicus brief filed this month, followed by an essay in the Washington Post by David Kopel, adjunct professor at Denver University's law school. They claim the English Bill of Rights of 1689 superseded the 1328 statute and that, "There was a lot of weapons-carrying in England." Thus, they conclude, D.C. residents have the right to carry guns in public. But their English history is wrong, as are their conclusions about public carry in the nation's capital. "
" 1688–89 ... , including a provision guaranteeing Protestants (but not Catholics or Jews) the right to bear arms. "
" By all means, let us learn from this English past: It did not include the unqualified right of an individual to carry arms in public."
"Priya Satia is a professor of British history at Stanford University."
More:
https://goo.gl/1RvWFs
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...f-on-history-of-right-to-carry-in-wrenn-v-dc/
