19th century perspectives on the 2nd amendment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Location
Texas
It is obvious why I ask this question, given the current political climate. I ask we that we leave modern controversy aside, as difficult that might be in our current enviroment. I read something earlier, here, that made me question my interpretation of the second amendment in the Confederate constitution, a simple comma. It piqued my curiosity.

I have reservations starting this topic given current circumstances and polarizing attitudes, but again 19th century interpretations is what I am after. I remember reading of Border Ruffians armed with cannons, civilians I had always assumed. And of course the famous smuggling of Beecher's Bibles, with codes prohibiting the enslaved from carry arms, along with alleged "weapons confiscation by the federal government." I have on occasion, read commentary that suggested the 2nd amendment was used by militias to subvert slave revolts.

What were antebellum, Civil War and Reconstruction era attitudes on an armed populace?
 
Last edited:
In my opinion the goal was to make it clear that the "free State" had the right to run and regulate its militia.
This made sure that even with a standing army the federal government would not just be able to suppress the freedom of the citizens.
And as such the right to own arms was to be connected to membership of the local militia.
(for much of the colonialperiod being a member and owning a relevant gun was a duty)

During the late 18th century there was a fight over if the US should rely on a standing army or the militia.

The wiki about the 2nd is long and well written covering many of the small and big changes:
 
I am the first to violate my own rule, I guess, but D.C. Vs Heller established the 2nd amendment was an individual right, like the other first 5 amendments. Constitutional law enumerates power to the judiciary so, ex po facto, the second amendment was always an individual, not state or delegated federal, right.

While not with in the confines of my earlier parameters, it is retroactive law. Your suppositions aren't inaccurate, but I was looking for legal challenges to the 2nd amendment, secession has already been well established as illegal to the concept of the "perpetual" and "the more perfect" Union, so state sanctioned military power, a mix with individual rights seems more complex that wiki's post. If federal supremacy reigns supreme, why have state militias?

I am seeking an untainted view of the 2nd amendment, with out legal precedent, for the second amendment in early reconstruction and before.
 
But that was only a few years ago. And today all ruling from the Supreme Court are political... (that is why I prefer a legal system where the politicians got no influence on judges... so a real divide between the legislative and judicial branches)

Also a number of states have laws that have religion as a requirement for holdning public office... and this is clearly not a violation of the 1st amenment.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."[10][11]

Two ruling that looks to be relevant reading.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top