Brief History of The Second Amendment

1. Brief History of The Second Amendment

2. KNOWLEDGE IS THE BEST WEAPON TO COMBAT NRA PROPAGANDA. KNOWLEDGE IS THE BEST WEAPON TO ACHIEVE RESPONSIBLE GUN SAFETY.

3. TEXT OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT • 1787: U.S. CONSTITUTION RATIFIED BY THE STATES • 1789: 2ND AMENDMENT ENACTED AS PART OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS ; RATIFIED IN 1791 • A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people  to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

4. ROLE OF THE U. S. SUPREME COURT THE SUPREME COURT IS THE LAST WORD ON WHETHER OR NOT FEDERAL AND STATE OR LOCAL LAWS VIOLATE THE U. S. CONSTITUTION. WHEN DID THE U. S. SUPREME COURT HOLD THAT THE 2ND AMENDMENT GRANTED AN INDIVIDUAL THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?

5. ORIGINAL SCOPE OF BILL OF RIGHTS PROTECTION • PROHIBITIONS AGAINST INFRINGEMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT THE STATES (UNLESS EXPRESSLY STATED IN THE AMENDMENT ITSELF). • IN 1868 14TH AMENDMENT RATIFIED • . . .No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws.

6. U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876): 2ND AMENDMENT RESTRICTED ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, NOT THE STATES. IN Presser v. Illinois (1886), SUPREME COURT HELD THAT 14TH AMENDMENT DOESN’T APPLY TO THE 2ND AMENDMENT BECAUSE 2ND AMENDMENT DOESN’T INVOLVE A PRIVILEGE OR IMMUNITY OF INDIVIDUALS, EXCEPT IN THEIR DUTIES WITHIN A MILITIA. 1897: EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE APPLIED TO CERTAIN PARTS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS, BUT STILL NOT THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

7. ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN (1897) The first ten amendments to the Constitution were intended simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities we inherited from our English ancestors, subject to well-recognized exceptions. There was no intention of disregarding the exceptions. Thus, e.g., the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.

8. United States v. Miller (1939) 307 U.S. 174 • Involved the indictment of two men for violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which barred transport of sawed-off shotgun across state lines without having registered it. • Court held that the U.S. Constitution enumerates Congress’s power to provide for calling up the militia to execute federal laws, suppress Insurrections and invasions; “to provide for organizing, arming …the Militia, reserving to the States respectively, . . .the training of the Militia….” • The 2nd Amendment furthers the Founders’ intent above. • The use and possession of firearms must bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

9. STARE DECISIS U. S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said: The fundamental conception of a judicial body is that of one hedged about by precedents which are binding on the court without regard to the personality of its members. Break down this belief in judicial continuity and let it be felt that on great constitutional questions this Court will determine them all according to the mere opinion of those who temporarily fill its bench, and our Constitution will be bereft of value and become a most dangerous instrument to the rights and liberties of the people.

10. http://smartgunlaws.org/second-amendment-basics/ANSWER TO QUESTION: 2008http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/04/charts-debunking-myth-guns-self-defense

11. Justice Stevens’ DISSENT IN D.C. V. MILLER EVEN IF . . . ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE WERE EVENLY BALANCED, RESPECT FOR THE WELL-SETTLED VIEWS OF ALL OF OUR PREDECESSORS ON THIS COURT, AND FOR THE RULE OF LAW ITSELF, . . . WOULD PREVENT MOST JURISTS FROM ENDORSING SUCH A DRAMATIC UPHEAVAL IN THE LAW. [FN OMITTED]

12. EVEN AFTER THE 2008 DECISION IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, THE INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO BEAR ARM IS NOT UNLIMITED: WE RECOGNIZE ANOTHER IMPORTANT LIMITATION ON THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS. MILLER SAID THAT THE SORTS OF WEAPONS PROTECTED WERE THOSE “IN COMMON USE AT THE TIME.” [OF 2ND AMENDMENT ENACTMENT] WE THINK THAT LIMITATION IS FAIRLY SUPPORTED BY THE HISTORICAL TRADITION OF PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF “DANGEROUS AND UNUSUAL WEAPONS.”

14. MORE BAD NEWS IN 2010, THE COURT DECIDED McDONALD v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ANOTHER 5-4 DECISION. THE COURT REVERSED THE LINE OF CASES HOLDING THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE STATES AND HELD THAT IT DOES, INDEED, APPLY TO THE STATES THROUGH THE 14TH AMENDMENT. CALIFORNIA’S CONSTITUTION DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT AN INDIVIDUAL’S RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS CANNOT BE INFRINGED. CALIFORNIA HAS THE TOUGHEST GUN LAWS IN THE NATION; THEY’RE NOW VULNERABLE TO ATTACK IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.

15. McDonald opinion says: The right to keep and bear arms is not ‘a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’ We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as ‘prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,’ ‘laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.’ We repeat those assurances here.

16. CONCLUSION THE HELLER AND McDONALDCASES DO NOT PROHIBIT ANY OF THE RESTRICTIONS SOUGHT BY RECENT LEGISLATION; DO NOT PROHIBIT AN ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN. KEEP REMINDING LEGISLATORS AND THE NRA OF THAT FACT. KNOWLEDGE IS POWER IN THE FIGHT FOR GUN SAFETY.