News Story: Historians are in Hot Demand re: Gun Rights

Jfriday1961

Jfriday1961

Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
44
Location
Greenville, NC
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
For your consumption, here is a story featured on NPR's Weekend Edition Saturday:

excerpt: "Historians have found themselves caught in the middle of America's debate over gun control ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that firearms laws must be consistent with American "tradition."

That decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen set off a new wave of challenges to state and federal restrictions on guns.

"What's happening now is a fight over what the Second Amendment ultimately means," says Chuck Michel, president and general counsel at the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which is suing the state over newly passed limits on concealed firearms. "This truly is a historic time for Second Amendment jurisprudence."

Bruen has also created sudden, intense interest in research from people such as Brennan Gardner Rivas, an independent scholar who wrote her dissertation on the history of gun regulation in Texas.

"The states and attorneys general who are trying to defend their gun laws from challenges now have to seek out historians to identify analogous historical laws," Rivas says. "They've all found me on their own through Googling me and looking up my publications and things like that."

Rivas, who has consulted on more than a dozen cases since the landmark Bruen decision, says her work is a mixture of analyzing digitized collections of historical state laws, while also seeking out the "dusty archives" that might contain forgotten local or municipal ordinances. She says a prominent example of this was the ban on carrying guns in Tombstone, Ariz. — a ban that sparked the infamous gunfight at the O.K. Corral in 1881. "

FULL STORY:

LINK: History of Gun Laws in USA Discussion
 
Hopefully those "historians" remind duh gubmint that in the past, citizens could own literal warships.

If I have to get a privateers licence to go with my CCW so I can put a Phalanx CIWS on a pontoon boat I sail around Lake Norman, so be it.
 
You know .gov will thoroughly vet those "historians" they hire. Only the ones that will support their cause and mission to infringe and disarm the people.

Seems as though the constitution is pretty clear already. And the Federalist Papers are available for clarification
 
The commie tyrants will continue to play lawfare as long as normal people are willing to play. The answer is to give them a very formidable, NO!

Our rights are as clear as day, and we don’t need some slimy politician or ignorant tyrant in a black dress to interpret them for us. Stop pretending that our rights come at their behest and permission. Let’s cut the foreplay and get on with the act.
 
Exspiravit said:
Hopefully those "historians" remind duh gubmint that in the past, citizens could own literal warships.

If I have to get a privateers licence to go with my CCW so I can put a Phalanx CIWS on a pontoon boat I sail around Lake Norman, so be it.
Click to expand...
Mount a 3" cannon on it.
 
pinkbunny said:
How is the Tombstone ordinance a prominent example? Wouldn't that be too long after the founding of the country to count for Bruen?
Click to expand...
when they can't win with text and history, go with tradition and see what sticks.
 
Plus, Tombstone was in a territory at the time, not a state.
 
Not a popular opinion, but the online workshop hosted by a professor at UNC-CH about two years ago was really good for the history of firearm ownership in the south, specifically African Americans.
I use that because, well, the way the nation is going, it's a huge focus on minorities, and that professor showed how firearms gave equality and respect/dignity/pride to a man.

Yeah, history is good. More than what I wrote, obviously, but that's one good point in expanding gun ownership through lessening restrictions and laws
 
HMP said:
Not a popular opinion, but the online workshop hosted by a professor at UNC-CH about two years ago was really good for the history of firearm ownership in the south, specifically African Americans.
Click to expand...
Dr Ossian Sweet had it figured out
 
Why bother with history and lame court rulings when you can just ignore them and continue as you wish?

www.nbcwashington.com

Virginia House approves assault weapons ban

The Virginia House of Delegates approved an assault weapons ban on a party line vote Friday. Fairfax County Democratic Del. Dan Helmer’s bill would end the sale and transfer of assault firearms manufactured after July 1, 2024. It also prohibits the sale of certain large capacity magazines. “This...
www.nbcwashington.com www.nbcwashington.com

Sounds like it won't make it, but it costs them $0 to keep trying over and over again until something sticks somewhere.
 
Exspiravit said:
Hopefully those "historians" remind duh gubmint that in the past, citizens could own literal warships.

If I have to get a privateers licence to go with my CCW so I can put a Phalanx CIWS on a pontoon boat I sail around Lake Norman, so be it.
Click to expand...
That would be a Letter of Marque
 
There is also the factor that one can find some laws or restrictions at times that were on the books but as actual historians pointed out it is often dubious if they were enforced at all.
 
pinkbunny said:
How is the Tombstone ordinance a prominent example? Wouldn't that be too long after the founding of the country to count for Bruen?
Click to expand...
The Supremes said that gun laws have to be in line with American historical tradition, not necessarily narrowed down to the time of the founding. Honestly, the way they worded it leaves a lot on the table. It's completely reasonable that after a decision like that lawyer and judges are scrambling to figure out what in the heck "keeping with tradition" actually means in relation to any given case they have in front of them. Does the Old West count as America's historical tradition? I think it does but I'm just a layman. A lawyer can certainly argue that it does. But another one can argue that it's not relevant.

I think Bruen was a good decision but I think they could have spelled it out more clearly. The law isn't a place where "you know what I meant" cuts it. Every letter of every word will be argued. The more stupidly simple something can be spelled out the better.
 
Bruen does miss the mark on a couple of things in my opinion.

First the Bill of Rights was a prohibition against the federal government not the states. In fact, Congress, when considering the Bill of Rights, rejected an amendment that would have applied these amendments to the states. Additionally, a number of nineteenth century court decisions rejected the argument that the first eight amendments limited the state's ability to restrict these rights. Only with the ratification of the Fourteenth amendment did the Court hold that the states were prohibited from depriving their citizens of the "privileges and protections" contained in the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, in my opinion, the history and tradition should only consider Federal laws and laws that were substantially similar across all the states since the 2nd amendment was not applied to the states until after the ratification of the Fourteenth amendment. Any state or local law enacted restricting the right to keep and bear arms would not have been in violation of the 2nd amendment until the adoption of the Fourteenth and therefore no challenge would have been able to be brought to Federal Court to determine if the restriction was unconstitutional. Only if a similar law was found across 3/4 of the states could I reasonably believe that it is in accordance with the history and tradition as if push came to shove it could have been ratified as an amendment to the constitution.
 
blewis3 said:
Bruen does miss the mark on a couple of things in my opinion.

First the Bill of Rights was a prohibition against the federal government not the states. In fact, Congress, when considering the Bill of Rights, rejected an amendment that would have applied these amendments to the states. Additionally, a number of nineteenth century court decisions rejected the argument that the first eight amendments limited the state's ability to restrict these rights. Only with the ratification of the Fourteenth amendment did the Court hold that the states were prohibited from depriving their citizens of the "privileges and protections" contained in the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, in my opinion, the history and tradition should only consider Federal laws and laws that were substantially similar across all the states since the 2nd amendment was not applied to the states until after the ratification of the Fourteenth amendment. Any state or local law enacted restricting the right to keep and bear arms would not have been in violation of the 2nd amendment until the adoption of the Fourteenth and therefore no challenge would have been able to be brought to Federal Court to determine if the restriction was unconstitutional. Only if a similar law was found across 3/4 of the states could I reasonably believe that it is in accordance with the history and tradition as if push came to shove it could have been ratified as an amendment to the constitution.
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, you are saying that only laws prior to the 14th amendment are traditional?
 
No
Jlwilliams said:
Just to be clear, you are saying that only laws prior to the 14th amendment are traditional?
Click to expand...
No, unless it was a federal law that stood the challenge of not being deemed unconstitutional or was a law that had substantially similar analogues across the majority of the states. Because if it did not, it was not prohibited by the 2nd because the 2nd was not a prohibition against the states until the 14th.
 
blewis3 said:
Bruen does miss the mark on a couple of things in my opinion.

First the Bill of Rights was a prohibition against the federal government not the states. In fact, Congress, when considering the Bill of Rights, rejected an amendment that would have applied these amendments to the states. Additionally, a number of nineteenth century court decisions rejected the argument that the first eight amendments limited the state's ability to restrict these rights. Only with the ratification of the Fourteenth amendment did the Court hold that the states were prohibited from depriving their citizens of the "privileges and protections" contained in the Bill of Rights.

Therefore, in my opinion, the history and tradition should only consider Federal laws and laws that were substantially similar across all the states since the 2nd amendment was not applied to the states until after the ratification of the Fourteenth amendment. Any state or local law enacted restricting the right to keep and bear arms would not have been in violation of the 2nd amendment until the adoption of the Fourteenth and therefore no challenge would have been able to be brought to Federal Court to determine if the restriction was unconstitutional. Only if a similar law was found across 3/4 of the states could I reasonably believe that it is in accordance with the history and tradition as if push came to shove it could have been ratified as an amendment to the constitution.
Click to expand...
Nothing has been more harmful than the 14th, 16th and 18th amendments, imo. The PRINCIPLE behind the 14th was good, which is that any citizen of the USA has rights and the states may not impinge on those rights. The problem with that is the Civil War established the principle that statehood is a roach hotel. You can check in but not check out. I would be actually for abrogating the 14th until we reaffirm the ability of a state to voluntarily leave the union if it wishes. THEN the 14th would be appropriate. Also the phrase in the 14 of "subject to the jurisdiction therof" really needs to be codified and explained. I seriously doubt the framers of that amendment anticipated anchor babies born to illegals as a part of that verbiage. I would be all for the application of the 14th to gun owner rights if a) there were a mechanism by which a plurality of states could override a USSC ruling and b) a state could secede if they decided that the Constitution / USSC ruling was in opposition to how they want to live.
 
Careful that the history might show:
That from day one, gun laws have been more restricted. Therefore, that trend should continue.

Just thinking from the Lib-side.
 
The challenge is that many states had gun control before and after 2A. The left can cherry pick these laws to support their position.
 
Chuckman said:
The challenge is that many states had gun control before and after 2A. The left can cherry pick these laws to support their position.
Click to expand...
This is my point, that since the 2nd was not applied to the states, that those laws are not to be considered unless at least 3/4 of the states had analogous laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom