I Am A Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania Citizen: Fill & Download for Free

B) any registered voter.I am happy to report that recently, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted full vote-by-mail rights to all its citizens, not just a “for the duration of the emergency” measure, but permanently. In fact, on your application for a ballot, you have the option to choose either “just this election” or “permanent change” in which they will mail you a ballot automatically each election cycle.They have not moved, as some states have, to a mail-in-only setup, so traditional polling places remain open, so we’ll see what the numbers look like.

The question is misleading and seeks a misleading response either intentionally for a revisionist history to exonerate the pro slavery Democrats or condemn the Republicans opposed to the expansion and imposition of slavery on states opposed to slavery. The facts of history are the exact opposite of what is being implied by the question.Pennsylvania my home state is the most important non slave state in the North for the following reasons:First Pennsylvania has the largest border with the south, the Mason Dixon line is the southern border of Pennsylvania and the Northern Border of Virginia and Maryland the northern most Slave States. Historically After the founding of Pennsylvania in 1682 The first recorded formal protest against slavery, the 1688 Germantown Quaker Petition Against Slavery, was signed by German members of a Quaker congregation.Second Pennsylvania was the first state to outlaw slavery, Pennsylvania State law made it illegal to a transport a black person from Pennsylvania for the propose of enslavement. The proslavery South through their Proslavery Democratic party used the laws and Supreme Court of the United States to impose slave hunters and upon the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.The Dred Scott Case ruling by the pro slavery Democrat US Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney who delivered the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), ruling that African-Americans could not be considered citizens and that Congress could not prohibit slavery in the territories of the United States. This also means that states could not outlaw slavery, thus slavery could be reintroduced into Pennsylvania by a Supreme Court Ruling.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Pennsylvania"During the American Revolutionary War, Pennsylvania passed the Gradual Abolition Act (1780), the first such law in the new United States. Pennsylvania's law established as free those children born to slave mothers after that date. They had to serve lengthy periods of indentured servitude until age 28 before becoming fully free as adults. Emancipation proceeded and, by 1810 there were fewer than 1,000 slaves in the Commonwealth. None appeared in records after 1847. "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prigg_v._PennsylvaniaPrigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539 (1842), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the federal Fugitive Slave Act (1793) precluded a Pennsylvania state law that prohibited blacks from being taken out of the free state of Pennsylvania into slavery. The Court overturned the conviction of slavecatcher Edward Prigg as a result.[1][2]Also, by refusing to take judicial notice of the problem of free blacks being kidnapped in free states and sold into slavery, the Prigg decision established an implicit precedent that blacks were entitled to fewer procedural protections than were whites.[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850The earlier Fugitive Slave Act of 1793 was a Federal law which was written with the intent to enforce Article 4, Section 2, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which required the return of runaway slaves. It sought to force the authorities in free states to return fugitive slaves to their masters.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford 1857"The Court ruled that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States."Many Republicans—including Abraham Lincoln, who was rapidly becoming the leading Republican in Illinois—regarded the decision as part of a plot to expand and eventually impose nationwide legalized slavery throughout all States.[33] At the same time, Southern Democrats characterized Republicans as lawless rebels, provoking disunion by their unwillingness to accept the Supreme Court's decision as the law of the land. Many Northern opponents of slavery offered a legalistic argument for refusing to recognize the Dred Scott decision as binding. As they noted, the Supreme Court's decision began with the proposition that the federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear Scott's case because he was not a citizen of the State of Missouri. Therefore, the opponents argued, the remainder of the decision concerning the Missouri Compromise was unnecessary (i.e., beyond the court's power to decide) and therefore a passing remark rather than an authoritative interpretation of the law (i.e., obiter dictum). Douglas attacked this position in the Lincoln–Douglas debates:Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare upon the Supreme Court of the United States, because of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that court—to the final determination of the highest judicial tribunal known to our constitution.Democrats had previously refused to accept the court's interpretation of the Constitution as permanently binding. During the Jackson administration, Roger B. Taney, working as Attorney General, wrote:Whatever may be the force of the decision of the Supreme Court in binding the parties and settling their rights in the particular case before them, I am not prepared to admit that a construction given to the constitution by the Supreme Court in deciding any one or more cases fixes of itself irrevocably [sic] and permanently its construction in that particular and binds the states and the Legislative and executive branches of the General government, forever afterwards to conform to it and adopt it in every other case as the true reading of the instrument although all of them may unite in believing it erroneous.[34]Frederick Douglass, a prominent African-American abolitionist who thought the decision unconstitutional and the Chief Justice's reasoning contrary to the founders' vision, prophesied that political conflict could not be avoided:The highest authority has spoken. The voice of the Supreme Court has gone out over the troubled waves of the National Conscience ... [But] my hopes were never brighter than now. I have no fear that the National Conscience will be put to sleep by such an open, glaring, and scandalous tissue of lies ...[35]

“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.” [Amendment II, Constitution of the United States, as ratified by the several States]The Constitution as a whole, including the amendments, must be viewed through the lens of the time to be understood. This is not as easy as it might sound, because even if you know the right words, you have to understand the context of the time. The Second Amendment is a real beast, because it has been interpreted by the courts, even the Supreme Court, for the most egregious of political reasons, to distort the meaning. I am not a Supreme Court Justice, nor even an attorney, and it is not my intent to refute Cruikshank, but to offer a fresh historical perspective on the meaning of the Second AmendmentThe Militia - What “They” Said….James Madison: “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” Federalist 46James Madison: “A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” 1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “ The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789)Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On DemocracyThomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” Richard Henry (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)Justice Joseph Story: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace both from the enormous expenses with which they are attended and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them…” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.The point many miss (and has not yet been addressed in any court) is that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to form militias. Just as the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an extension of the right to life, the people’s right to defend life, the right to form militias is an extension of the right to liberty, the people’s right to defend liberty.When Madison proposed the Second Amendment, he submitted the text of the Massachusetts proposal, unchanged…“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.” [Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Charles Hale, (1856), p. 86]As you can see, the intent of this proposal was, clearly, to guarantee the rights of citizens to own and carry arms. They recognized this as essential because, a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country. This was recognizing the role of militias in liberating Massachusetts from the British.Understand, it was not “The Kings Militia” who rebelled against King George, it was the armed citizens of the colonies who formed ad hoc militias (such as The Sons of Liberty) to oppose what they perceived as tyrannical government, facing the troops of the King. With the exception of Boston, Massachusetts was essentially liberated before the Revolution began. In many communities around Massachusetts, militias had already repelled British soldiers who came to confiscate their powder, with the threat of arms, before the Battle of Concord.These militias were not controlled by the Colonial Government in any way. Originally, many were formed in communities throughout the colonies, especially in New England, primarily for community protection and policing (analogous to today’s Neighborhood Watch), who joined with militias like The Sons of Liberty. Even after the Continental Army was formed, the militias were not “controlled” by the Army, but often coordinated with it. The Founders were guaranteeing, not just the right to own and carry firearms, but the right of the people to form militias.Well Regulated?The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.So, if something is “well regulated”, it is “regular” (a well regulated clock; regular as clockwork).In the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. [2](emphasis added)The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."Finally, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, from The Federalist Papers, #29,The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.From this quote we can deduce two things:If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”)As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. "Well Regulated" was a superlative of the character desired in a militia. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People.Arms - weapons considered collectivelyThere is a lot of misunderstanding of this term, even among the gun community. If you just read the 2nd Amendment by itself, it is easily (and often) misinterpreted. If you study the the supporting documents and the ratification debates, it becomes much clearer. Nonetheless, the keys are in the text of the amendment itself. A couple of definitions first to promote understanding….implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons systemammo, ammunition - projectiles to be fired from a gunarmament - weaponry used by military or naval forcebomb - an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditionsUsage - A couple of famous quotes…Niccolò Machiavelli:The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms . You cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.Adolf Hitler:The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.arms (Johnson and Walker’s Dictionary of the English Language, 1828) -At the time of the Second Amendment, arms meant pretty much the same as now. Firearms (muskets and muzzle loading rifles), ammunition (powder and bullets), bayonets, swords, and field pieces, but those were the arms of the time. The term “arms” was selected with the understanding that while the hardware might change, it would still be “arms”. Whether it’s a Brown Bess, or a Type 4 phaser, it’s still arms.Actually, the modern definition still applies, as the Founders were well aware that military science was rapidly evolving, particularly in the field of arms. They specified arms to leave interpretation as broad as possible, but there are caveats. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… [emp. added][Tenche Coxe]Mr. Coxe was a Congressman from Pennsylvania. Clearly their intent was that citizens be armed with military grade weapons.It seems pretty clear cut, but in analysis, there are inherent limitations, on both government, and the People. The prefatory clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, is a justification clause, and defines a limit on what type of arms. It does not say, “Because the People need to hunt for food, and slaughter live stock” or “As the People must be secure in their person and home”. Though these are good and sensible reasons, and while they were certainly considerations…. It specifies the militia as defined above, so clearly all arms, up to and including military grade weapons.The operative clause: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, note the wording - keep AND bear arms. These two terms are inextricably linked. It inherently limits the arms you may keep, to the arms you can bear. In other words, such arms as an infantryman or “soldier” carries; at the time, a musket or rifle (with bayonet), with sword, and or pistol. Today, common, infantry type weapons include (but are not limited to) pistols, semi-automatic rifles, burst fire rifles, and fully automatic rifles of a caliber used by the individual infantryman.This specifically excludes crew served weapons such as heavy machine guns, mortars, artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, missiles (other than man-portable), fighter jets, etc. because a single militiaman cannot bear them, by himself. Just as the Federal government can commission privately owned ships, by a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, as ships of war (privateers), the governors of the States can commission officers to establish, and equip a militia unit, with the crew served arms needed to wage war.What to Conclude?Having properly defined “militia” as used in the vernacular of the Founders, and establishing the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” as it was used at the time the Second Amendment was written, it seems the “well regulated militia” was meant to be “the whole people”, all citizens, who, at need, could work together, and as effectively as a professional army, with the armament they provide themselves. In order to do that the arms and equipment in their possession, part of their “regulation”, would be arms and equipment equal to that of any army they may face. None of this seems to support the interpretation that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, or a state sponsored, organized militia.As to what constitutes arms… This analysis must conclude that the government shall not infringe (in any way limit) the right of the citizen to own any weapon they can use effectively by themselves, as individuals, or carry them, as is fit. While the prefatory clause is a justification clause, it is not the only justification found in the supporting documents, but one of several. It was seen as the most important, and justified the broadest possible latitude in the types of arms the People could own. A hunting or slaughter weapon might or might not be effective for personal or home defense. A weapon suitable for home defense can also be used to hunt, and slaughter livestock, but not optimal in armed conflict. A weapon suitable for military use can be used for all of the above. This does not limit one to “military grade” weapons only. Any weapon can be used effectively in combat. It may not be a “first choice” weapon, but it can certainly be used effectively if it is all you have; certainly more effectively than nothing at all.Even if the Constitution were amended to preclude government access to the militia, this would not affect the Second Amendment. The “militia clause” of the Second Amendment was not the “reason” for the amendment. It simply represented what the Founders saw as the most important of many reasons. Actually, the Second Amendment could be seen as guaranteeing The People the right to form militias, irrespective of government control.The Second Amendment was founded on this principle, “Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”, from the Declaration of Right, commonly known as the English Bill of Rights. Notice there is no mention of the militia, but this guarantees the right of the English people to have “arms for their defence”. Explicit with the “right to have”, is the right to use in your defence, therefore to carry with you if you felt you may be threatened.Since the right to own and carry firearms was already commonly understood, but the British Governors had elected to deprive them, in some very important cases, of the means to equip their militia, the Founders saw this as the most likely abuse of power regarding firearms, since the right to own and carry arms had been undisputed for 100 years. It did not deny the ownership and use of arms for defense, and in fact states that the right to own and carry arms, even for use as a militia, shall not be infringed. Note another difference to the clause from the Declaration of Right…. “and as allowed by law” was specifically addressed by, “shall not be infringed”. While the King could make laws regarding ownership and use of arms, Congress could not.What Does It Mean… Today?Modern language only vaguely resembles the language of a couple of centuries ago. This is “linguistic drift”. As society changes, so does language. Words take on new meanings, or even express different ideas. The Heller decision was the first SCOTUS decision that actually took a look at the basis of the 2nd Amendment, that actually parsed the arguments of the authors, and the delegates to the ratifying conventions. The Court’s conclusion was inescapable. The only reason the opinion didn’t go any further than it did, was because the question before the court was very narrow.You see, actually, the words in the Constitution define the concepts at that time. That specific concept was agreed to by all parties to the document. This was a contract agreed to on behalf of the representative’s constituents. While the meaning of the words may change over time, that concept remains the same. The concept, described by what the words meant at that time, is the law.As language changes, so does society, but, the law does not. That is why it is the duty of Congress to write laws pursuant to the Constitution, and as society grows, and the people, in great enough numbers, feel the Constitution no longer addresses the needs of society, to amend the Constitution. Until that happens, regardless of what the words may mean today as opposed to the time when they were written, those concepts, agreed to by all signatories, shape the law.The Constitution is a legal document; a land survey plat is a legal document. Both are defining legal constructs. A piece of real estate is defined by boundaries. You will never see a parcel of land defined with a stream or river as a boundary. A stream may run congruent with the boundary, but markers are set to establish the boundary. Over time, a stream may change course. If your boundary is on a stream, when it moves, do you suddenly have less land than you paid for? Of course not, your land still extends to the markers set at the time of the survey. This is why the concepts of the Constitution, not modern definitions of the words, define the law.Understanding the history of the Second Amendment, if it were written in today’s style, it might be written as…The right the people to own and carry arms, even for use as a military comparable militia, shall not be infringed.Footnotes[1] Meaning of the phrase[2] What the Founding Fathers Meant by "Militia"