thanks-the federal government was never intended to have any power to limit citizens from owning arms. many gun banners confuse the scope of the amendment with the scope of the coverage
Your question was: "can you find anything attributable to any signer of the constitution that suggests any of them thought the federal government should be able to prevent citizens of the several states from owning arms?" Answered!
Slaves, not black people, didn't have rights under the Constitution, at 5he time of ratification. Not all black people in the colonies were slaves. Some were free and enjoyed the same property rights as white people.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." Bear arms obviously meant to serve in the militia in the discussion. There is a right to bear arms thus there is a right to serve in the militia.
It's interesting that Heller found justification for the NFA in the Second Amendment (the Second Amendment only protects arms in common use thus machine guns can be banned). So does this mean that the Second Amendment increased the federal government's power over guns?
many gun banners pretend that since the protections of the bill of rights were not originally extended to slaves that somehow limited the scope of the rights even to citizens. that is a tremendously ignorant argument but is popular among the anti gun left. They try to pretend that since the second amendment didn't protect non citizens, it is limited in prohibiting the federal government from infringing on the rights of citizens
The same old lame ass argument that the 2nd Amendment only gave the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia is revisionist nonsense.
"We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase 'part of ordinary military equipment' could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s 'ordinary military equipment' language must be read in tandem with what comes after: '[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.' 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms 'in common use at the time' for lawful purposes like self-defense. 'In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.' State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25" "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' " - DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER I don't think it can be inferred from the above that weapons restricted by the NFA are constitutionally protected.
They also focus strongly on 19th century gun laws and rulings because this was mostly designed to keep former slaves from owning guns. Versus looking at 18th century rulings and ideas. Gun control since it's inception has always been racist
The NFA is unconstitutional and would likely be repealed if challenged the only problem is you risk a 60-year sentence. If we go back to 1791 after the Constitution has been ratified the threshold for legal firearms is those that are owned for a legal purpose. All guns banned by the NFA could be on for legal purposes. It's as simple as that it's unconstitutional.
When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.” Please demonstrate that the requirement to register the weapons that fall under the NFA consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Are you trying to imply that the Supreme Court contradicted itself? But here's what a historian says: "Consider these five categories of gun laws that the Founders endorsed. "#1: Registration Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition." https://theconversation.com/five-types-of-gun-laws-the-founding-fathers-loved-85364
at a federal level? and you confuse being required to have a weapon with being prevented from having one-HUGE DIFFERENCE.. BTW the guy who wrote that nonsense-Saul Cornell-is pretty well seen as a joke in this area. He's a paid shill for anti gun foundations like the Joyce Foundation and constantly tries to use state laws to justify federal power. He was on the losing side of Heller-having wrote an amicus brief trying to defend the indefensible-the unconstitutional DC Gun ban. He also has been proven to lie about firearms https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/05/a-gun-control-advocate-and-his-fabricated-facts/ Which is not surprising given he is not someone who has legal training. he's almost as bad as that clown who lost his award for making up claims that guns were few and far between at the time the constitution was written https://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/14/business/prize-for-book-is-taken-back-from-historian.html
I think everyone understands the the 1934 NFA is unconstitutional and only survived because the FDR court ignored the bill of rights numerous times
BTW claiming you have to establish you have a militia suitable weapon is not the same as registration. completely different.
The Supreme Court in the Heller case ruled that the defendant be allowed to register his handgun so that he could legally own it in the District of Columbia. So they didn't find gun registration to be unconstitutional.
All I see here is your inability to demonstrate the requirement to register the weapons that fall under the NFA is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. As such it is impossible for you to soundly argue that the NFA does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
This applies only to firearms used by members of the militia for service in the militia. It did not apply to anyone, or the firearms owned by anyone, not serving in the militia, nor to the firearm a militiaman did not plan to use while in service. Try again.
Registration was not an issue before the court. So, they did not hold that registration was constitutional. EVERY gun regulation considered under Heller was struck, NONE of them were upheld.
Registration is unnecessary. When you get a background check, the application form is essentially a registration form. And who the hell cares about "every other industrial democracy"??? I don't live there. I live in America. Absolutely irrelevant what happens elsewhere. We fought a revolution to become independent.
