Marie Hansen Properties: Fill & Download for Free

Colleges at the time were on private property, they were not considered public and not supported by the public except as private grants, as patronage, to the school.It was unquestionable that individuals operating in a private capacity could determine the terms of trespass upon their own property. As an argument, it seems a bit weak at that point.Madison also had a fight with the supreme court over the appointment of federal judges, pursuant to the constitution, by his predecessor. In spite of him arguing for the right of judges to void the law, in the Federalist papers and in correspondence, when it became inconvenient, it forced a constitutional crisis going back to the Bonham case under Justice Coke before the constitution was founded, one of the underlaying decisions leading to the establishment of the judiciary initially.Jefferson recognized that slavery was inconsistent with the guarantee of the constitution for general laws, obligatory on the legislature, its friends and the whole of society, and that slavery could only be supported by separate law. He still possessed slaves to his death, without challenging directly those laws.Our founders were mortal men, but the second amendment did not derive from the constitution, it derived from the Civil Rights act of 1688 under William and Mary of Orange.This was part of the reason it was thought unnecessary in the beginning, as it was covered under the ‘privileges and immunities’ clause under article 4, and targeted law (which would be required to deprive it in any meaningful fashion) was prohibited under article 1, sections 9 and 10. To do so, the states would have to disarm their own officers, and the military forces, as the law had to be general.The argument went so far as to claim, in the case of Prudence Crandall, that if they were to extend citizenship to free-born of African ancestry, that their right to keep and bear arms would be unquestionable.The same was true under the Dred Scott v Sandford case.The argument was also made in the Nunn case in Georgia on the right… in 1846"And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt, but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right has no limits, short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and in fact consists of nothing else but the liberty. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens bearing weapons. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms has been as directly assailed by the provisions of this act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets. And, if the act be consistent with the Constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the Legislature by successive enactments to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For in principle there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing of such as are exposed; and, if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."…“The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States, in their act of ratification, recommended that further restrictive clauses should be added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature.Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them(p.251)as beacon-lights to guide and control the action of their own legislatures, as well as that of Congress. If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State of Georgia and of the United States, is it competent for the General Assembly to take away this security, by disarming the people? What advantage would it be to tie up the hands of the national legislature, if it were in the power of the States to destroy this bulwark of defence? In solemnly affirming that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and that, in order to train properly that militia, the unlimited right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired, are not the sovereign people of the State committed by this pledge to preserve this right inviolate? Would they not be recreant to themselves, to free government, and false to their own vow, thus voluntarily taken, to suffer this right to be questioned? If they hesitate or falter, is it not to concede (themselves being judges) that the safety of the States is a matter of indifference?Such, I apprehend, was never the meaning of the venerated statesman who recommended, nor of the people who adopted, this amendment.The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances; to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; in all criminal prosecutions, to be confronted with the witness against them; to be publicly tried by an impartial jury; and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence, is as perfect under the State as the national legislature, and cannot be violated by either.Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.”Further, Madison also stated, that there was no power in the Federal government that could override the people’s will, given that the people were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms.“Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”Study some history, if you would please. These questions are a bit silly anymore.(Edit: Added date of Nunn case)

Well, to get that information out, you have to go back well before the constitution, to the writs of William and Mary of Orange, in 1688/1689.Bill of Rights 1689 - WikipediaThe right to arms was instituted on that act to the protestants, after it flipflopping back and forth between Catholic and Protestant by edict. It was limited to ‘those arms appropriate for their condition’, however, which meant that by the time of the revolution, most people in Britain who did not own property under fee-simple obligation did not have it. By and large these were limited under laws for the preservation of game, under the excuse of preventing poaching.The purpose, according to the writers, of that act were to preserve the peace, and to give an effective means of arming a militia, as the army had been broken down entirely and prohibited in peacetime. They were granted the right to arms for their defense, and this tradition was brought into the colonies.(note that the colonial/commonweath application of that charter still exists, even if some aspects are no longer allowed to be exercised)There is a body of documents by those who supported the constitution, the Federalist Papers, and an opposing body by those who felt that system was too strong, the Antifederalist papers. These were both written during the constitutional deliberation, before the constitution was fully drafted or signed.Some of the fears of a standing army were discussed in The Federalist #26The solution was discussed in The Federalist #46.“Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. “There’s a good illustration of this in the case of Nunn v. State of Georgia (1846)http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/nunn_v_state.txtIf this right, "inestimable to freemen," has been guarantied to British subjects, since the abdication and flight of the last of the Stuarts and the ascension of the Prince of Orange, did it not belong to our colonial ancestors in this western hemisphere? Has it been a part of the English Constitution ever since the bill of rights and act of settlement? and been forfeited here by the substitution and adoption of our own Constitution? No notion can be more fallacious than this! On the contrary, this is one of the fundamental principles, upon which rests the great fabric of civil liberty, reared by the fathers of the Revolution and of the country: And the Constitution of the United States, in declaring that the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, only reiterated a truth announced a century before, in the act of 1689, "to extend and secure the rights and liberties of English subjects "--whether living 3,000 or 300 miles from the royal palace. And it is worthy of observation, that both charters or compacts look to the same motive, for their respective enactments- The act of 1 William and Mary, declares that it is against law to raise or keep a standing army in the kingdom, in time of peace, without the consent of Parliament, and therefore places arms in the hands of the people; and our Constitution assigns as a reason why this right shall not be interfered with, or in any manner abridged, that the free enjoyment of it will prepare and qualify a well-regulated militia, which are necessary to the security of a free State.it continues further:“Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted themAMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251Nunn vs. The State of Georgiaas beacon-lights to guide and control the action of their own legislatures, as well as that of Congress. If a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of the State of Georgia and of the United States, is it competent for the General Assembly to take away this security, by disarming the people? What advantage would it be to tie up the hands of the national legislature, if it were in the power of the States to destroy this bulwark of defence ? In solemnly affirming that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and that, in order to train properly that militia; the unlimited right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired, are not the sovereign people of the State committed by this pledge to preserve this right inviolate? Would they not be recreant to themselves, to free government, and false to their own vow, thus voluntarily taken, to suffer this right to be questioned? If they hesitate or falter, is it not to concede (themselves being judges) that the safety of the States is a matter of indifference?Such, I apprehend, was never the meaning of the venerated statesman who recommended, nor of the people who adopted, this amendment.The right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances; to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures; in all criminal prosecutions, to be confronted with the witness against them; to be publicly tried by an impartial jury; and to have the assistance of counsel for their defence, is as perfect under the State as the national legislature, and cannot be violated by either.Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;" The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation!And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.”There was a substantial amount of argument surrounding the issue in several early ‘civil rights’ cases regarding those of African descent, both slave and free-born. It was recognized that if they were the class of ‘citizen’ that they’d be forced to give them their right, and a great deal of reasoning on ‘racial incapacity’ did its level best to eliminate it for those persons. This status continued through the Dred Scott case.Dred Scott v. Sandford 60 U.S. 393 (1856)On the last paragraph of page 416, through 417.“ More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police Page 60 U. S. 417 regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.”The remnants of the same court gutted the civil rights act of 1866, and we passed the 14th amendment with the wording to preserve those ‘privileges and immunities’, then repassed the law in 1871 under the 14th amendment. In 1874, we ended up in a situation where the law was being ignored, then was gutted by the remnants of that court again by claiming that there was never any such right protected by the constitution. The same excuse has been claimed under Cruikshanks case since the 1800s.It wasn’t until the Heller decision that this reframing of law and logic was effectively redressed, and between Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and Caetano, some of the restrictions have finally been pushed back again, but nowhere near to the point before the Cruikshanks decision.Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of LawThe law’s still on the books, a felony act of enforcing any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom in any state, territory, district or possession, that deprives or causes the deprivation of any right, privilege, or immunity guaranteed or protected under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.The situation has yet to be resolved, as this is perhaps the least-enforced law, and one of the very few that had a constitutional amendment just to allow its enforcement in specific. The act, and the amendment, fully vested those rights in the people in a manner that the only way to revoke it would be a bill of attainder, forbidden both the state and federal governments under article 1, sections 9 and 10 of that constitution.But here we are.

Every time there’s a political ‘shock’ in our nation, when our people’s consciences are seared with a hot iron from events that make us fearful, we tend to knee-jerk and say ‘Someone ought to make a law’.What, I fear, those who are against the second amendment right will never tell you is that Cruikshanks was decided the way it was out of racial animus, and ignored the plain intent of the author of the Fourteenth amendment, and that of congress and the states that passed it.Congressional Debates of the 14th AmendmentThe next question is whether this act infringes that section of the Constitution which declares that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?' "The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental, which belong of right to the citizens of all free Governments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are it would, perhaps, bemore tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject nevertheless to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property, either real or personal, and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of theState, may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental, to which may be added the elective franchise, as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised. These, and many others which might be mentioned, are, strictly speaking, privileges and immunities, and the enjoyment of them by the citizens of each State in every other State was manifestly calculated (to use the expressions of the preamble of the corresponding provision in the old Articles of Confederation) 'the better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States of the Union.'"Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be — for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature — to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.What they will also not tell you is that there are multiple state-level court cases (from the 1830s) claiming that the right was cojoined within the second amendment and the state constitutions, and nearly all of them (with the exception of New York) recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms as part of the very national citizenship… until they were faced with the idea of being forced to share that citizenship with persons of other skin colors.Nor are they willing to look at the laws of England and the privileges and immunities of British subjects, from which our own rights arose, which also involved a right to keep and bear arms.Absolute Rights of Individuals - LONANG InstituteJustice Blackstone had a lot to say on the subject of rights, laws, and punishment under the British system.5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.In these several articles consist the rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen: liberties more generally talked of, than thoroughly understood; and yet highly necessary to be perfectly known and considered by every man of rank or property, lest his ignorance of the points whereon it is founded should hurry him into faction and licentiousness on the one hand, or a pusillanimous indifference and criminal submission on the other. And we have seen that these rights consist, primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. so long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary that the constitution of parliaments be supported in its full vigor; and limits certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts and law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense.By and large in the racial cases (Prudence crandall being among those) they claimed that right was restricted to the WHITE citizens of the united states,a nd hence, nobody else could be citizens. (They also generally tried to exclude those of Irish and Italian ancestry from that definition), but it was among the rights of that class of persons known as citizens.They ignore what the milita WAS at the time.LETTERS ON THE LATE WAR BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND GREAT BRITAIN: TOGETHER WIT OTHER MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS ON THE SAME SUBJECTFrom the war of 1812.The episode with the “brilliant dash,” seems to have been marked with nearly all the charicteristics of the “brilliant dash” itself. Sir peter Parker, with his ship’s company and marines, go in search of a parcel of militia in a wood. The reader may not, perhaps, be aware, that there is no sort of resemblence betwen the American and the English militia. These militia in America receive no pay, no clothing, no arms, from the government. Every man goes out in his own ordinary array and carries his own arms and accoutrements. Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, he finds his own powder and ball. In short, it was a body of the people, voluntarily assembled, and acknowleging no superior not of their own electing: This was the sort of force against whom Sir Peter Parker marched. They were, as usual, greatly superior in numbers; and as usual, they were defeated, and ran away. But in the end, Sir Peter lost his life, and his second in command succeeded. . . . . . . in what? Why, in bringing off to the ship almost all our wounded.I would say the gentleman writing this article, alas, has failed all the tests of historic study; a responsibility to derive the truth from what he read, to dig deeper into the subject, and to not simply take things at the initial glance. Take his mentions of the Federalist papers as regards to arms and militias.He takes the federalist 29, and ignores multiple other federalist papers on the subject of arms. The federalist 27 through 29 concern the militia, yes, but in the format of arming and disciplining the militia via training.If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance.The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny. But in a confederacy the people, without exaggeration, may be said to be entirely the masters of their own fate. Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and these will have the same disposition towards the general government. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. If their rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!There was a strong concern that the states could crush the rights of the citizens, but there was other further quotes on the subject.Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.Then there are the arguments in that Continental Congress.Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a(p.17)standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.[13]Tench Coxe wrote on the subject, and was thanked by Madison for it:The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. 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.The Yeomanry are the people, the untrained, undisciplined people, subject to the call to military service, but separate from the organized military. Upon being called to service, or calling themselves thus, they become a thing known as a ‘militia’.When we disbanded the militias in the post-civil-war south, we did not disarm them. To do so would be a violation of their rights, according to the argument, and even then it was recognized that the rights were separate from militia service.There was a grave fear that the people would be disarmed, at the federal or state level in the beginning.Massachusetts Yeomen Oppose the "Aristocratickal" Constitution, January, 1788.In framing a constitution for this commonwealth, two trials were made before one would stick. We are willing to relinquish so much, as to have a firm, energetick government, and this we are sensible may be done, without becoming slaves, to the capricious fancies of any sett of men whatever. It is argued, that there is no danger that the proposed rulers will be disposed to exercise any powers that this constitution puts into their hands, which may enable them to deprive the people of their liberties. But in case, say they, they should make such attempts, the people may, and will rise to arms and prevent it; in answer to which, we have only to say, we have had enough of fighting in the late war, and think it more eligible, to keep our liberties in our own hands, whilst it is in our power thus to do, than to place them in the hands of fallible men, like ourselves, who may if they please, entirely deprive us of them, and so we be at last reduced to the sad alternative of losing them forever, or recovering them back by the point of the sword. The aristocratick party are sensible, that these are the sentiments of the majority of the community, and their conduct plainly evinces the truth of a well known ancient adage— " Nothing cuts like the truth."This is not a new battle. The Republican party and the Democratic have been arguing about it since before the passage of the 14th amendment.People rail against District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)They claim that there was no history behind McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)Have they ever READ them?After the Civil War, many of the over 180,000 African Americans who served in the Union Army returned to the States of the old Confederacy, where systematic efforts were made to disarm them and other blacks. See Heller, 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 42); E. Foner, Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution 1863–1877, p. 8 (1988) (hereinafter Foner). The laws of some States formally prohibited African Americans from possessing firearms. For example, a Mississippi law provided that “no freedman, free negro or mulatto, not in the military service of the United States government, and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” Certain Offenses of Freedmen, 1865 Miss. Laws p. 165, §1, in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction 289 (W. Fleming ed. 1950); see also Regulations for Freedmen in Louisiana, in id., at 279–280; H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 233, 236 (1866) (describing a Kentucky law); E. McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America During the Period of Reconstruction 40 (1871) (describing a Florida law); id., at 33 (describing an Alabama law).[Footnote 18]Throughout the South, armed parties, often consisting of ex-Confederate soldiers serving in the state militias, forcibly took firearms from newly freed slaves. In the first session of the 39th Congress, Senator Wilson told his colleagues: “In Mississippi rebel State forces, men who were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages upon them; and the same things are done in other sections of the country.” 39th Cong. Globe 40 (1865). The Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction—which was widely reprinted in the press and distributed by Members of the 39th Congress to their constituents shortly after Congress approved the Fourteenth Amendment[Footnote 19]—contained numerous examples of such abuses. See, e.g., Joint Committee on Reconstruction, H. R. Rep. No. 30, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, pp. 219, 229, 272, pt. 3, pp. 46, 140, pt. 4, pp. 49–50 (1866); see also S. Exec. Doc. No. 2, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 23–24, 26, 36 (1865). In one town, the “marshal [took] all arms from returned colored soldiers, and [was] very prompt in shooting the blacks whenever an opportunity occur[red].” H. R. Exec. Doc. No. 70, at 238 (internal quotation marks omitted). As Senator Wilson put it during the debate on a failed proposal to disband Southern militias: “There is one unbroken chain of testimony from all people that are loyal to this country, that the greatest outrages are perpetrated by armed men who go up and down the country searching houses, disarming people, committing outrages of every kind and description.” 39th Cong. Globe 915 (1866).[Footnote 20]Union Army commanders took steps to secure the right of all citizens to keep and bear arms,[Footnote 21] but the 39th Congress concluded that legislative action was necessary. Its efforts to safeguard the right to keep and bear arms demonstrate that the right was still recognized to be fundamental.The most explicit evidence of Congress’ aim appears in §14 of the Freedmen’s Bureau Act of 1866, which provided that “the right … to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens … without respect to race or color, or previous condition of slavery.” 14 Stat. 176–177 (emphasis added).[Footnote 22] Section 14 thus explicitly guaranteed that “all the citizens,” black and white, would have “the constitutional right to bear arms.”One might pardon my exasperation, but it would seem a willful blindness to claim ‘no history’ where the history is not only laid out, but referenced and footnoted and neatly stacked away.From HellerBetween the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J. Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights, 1689, p. 76 (1981). Under the auspices of the 1671 Game Act, for example, the Catholic James II had ordered general disarmaments of regions home to his Protestant enemies. See Malcolm 103–106. These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2, §7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. See E. Dumbauld, The Bill of Rights and What It Means Today 51 (1957); W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 122 (1825) (hereinafter Rawle). It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia. To be sure, it was an individual right not available to the whole population, given that it was restricted to Protestants, and like all written English rights it was held only against the Crown, not Parliament. See Schwoerer, To Hold and Bear Arms: The English Perspective, in Bogus 207, 218; but see 3 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §1858 (1833) (hereinafter Story) (contending that the “right to bear arms” is a “limitatio[n] upon the power of parliament” as well). But it was secured to them as individuals, according to “libertarian political principles,” not as members of a fighting force. Schwoerer, Declaration of Rights, at 283; see also id., at 78; G. Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens 49, and n. 7 (1901) (reprinted 1979).By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects. See Malcolm 122–134. Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen. See 1 Blackstone 136, 139–140 (1765). His description of it cannot possibly be thought to tie it to militia or military service. It was, he said, “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” id., at 139, and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence,” id., at 140; see also 3 id., at 2–4 (1768). Other contemporary authorities concurred. See G. Sharp, Tracts, Concerning the Ancient and Only True Legal Means of National Defence, by a Free Militia 17–18, 27 (3d ed. 1782); 2 J. de Lolme, The Rise and Progress of the English Constitution 886–887 (1784) (A. Stephens ed. 1838); W. Blizard, Desultory Reflections on Police 59–60 (1785). Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.Someone is lying here… one side or the other. The history is laid out, the examination is plain and relatively simple. Even the language of the amendment itself is explored in Heller, McDonald, and Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)For the last 150 years, the same party has been declaring that there is no such right, in violation of both the laws, and the constitution.Deprivation Of Rights Under Color Of LawWhen we engage in felonies under the color of ‘public policy’ it hardly comports with the ‘democratic process’.