Is that so..... "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." — Tench Coxe "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " -- Samuel Adams "The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun." -- Patrick Henry "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -- Zachariah Johnson "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton "The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order." -- Thomas M. Cooley
But never gave congress the legislative power to forbid the people of the several states from acquiring, possessing, or carrying arms.
There were no laws that forbade on the use of firearms for purposes outside of official militia duties. No one was ever arrested and tried for the crime of using a militia firearm for private purposes that had no bearing on the security of a free state, national defense, or anything else along those lines.
Either insist your State legislature organizes more militia or stop whining about gun control, right wingers.
From what I know, people bore arms for various reasons long before 2A was written, and usually for self-defense or as part of militias that operated as slave patrols. Given the background, i.e., the discussions while 2A was being drafted (several times) the framers were concerned with the following: the right to bear arms (as they recalled some British units that tried to disarm colonists), the need of state militias to continue operating for various purposes (raised by various framers), the need for state militias to counter any tyranny through the federal gov't (Madison) and a standing army (several), and the need to allow for exemptions to mandatory service in militias based on religious beliefs (raised by some). They eventually negotiated and supported the first three points above and rejected the last. The result was 2A, which protected the right to bear arms and used that right to justify the need for regulated militias. The militias were presumably the ones that were already in place and served the states, but could (following other references to militias in the same Constitution) serve the fed. gov't when needed because they wanted to avoid having a large standing army. In time, the mandatory service was replaced by conscription, and given the last Militia Act, the National Guard was formed.
Interestingly enough, it was Washington who complained about the poor training of some militias during the Revolutionary War. Some began to have misgivings, arguing that the potential opponents that they faced had much larger professional armies, and yet they wanted to avoid having a large, standing army. That probably changed after 1812.
And which of congress's legislative powers would allow it to either abridge or infringe on the ability of the people of the several states from acquiring, possessing, or carrying arms?
Such depends largely upon just what the scope of abridgement constitutes. Some have made the erroneous argument that it would be perfectly legal and constitutional to prohibit the private ownership of all firearms except for single-shot muskets, since such were the only firearms in existence at the time of the ratification of the second amendment. The united state supreme court has ruled otherwise. According to the legally binding precedent of the united state supreme court, the second amendment applies to all implements that constitute bearable arms, even those that did not exist at the time of the ratification.
Ever wonder why convicts are not allowed to bear arms? That's part of abridging fundamental rights. Do you understand? One cannot infringe on the right to bear arms, but it can be abridged for various reasons.
But as I'm sure you know, congress does not have plenary power to legislate. It has a small set of enumerated legislative powers. These powers can be found in article one, section eight. So which of these enumerated legislative powers allow it to either abridge or infringe on the ability of the people of the several states from acquiring, possessing, or carrying arms? ongress does not have plenary power to legislate. It has a small set of enumerated legislative powers.
Fundamental rights, such as due process of law? Such as how a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without being provided due process of law?
Considering there were major battles in the War of 1812 that were fought and won by militia (such as the Defense of Baltimore), and dispatches from the field hailed the "fine regulation" of the militia units...
Basically, all of them. All fundamental rights may not be infringed but may be abridged. That's why convicts are not allowed to bear arms and various groups, from the military to the police to various states, have regulations concerning possession and use of firearms.
Fundamental rights such as the right to bear arms, and even the right to life. That's why convicts are not allowed to bear arms and capital punishment takes place in some states. Of course, due process takes place. But it's the law that abridges these rights.
On the other hand, from "War of 1812": Ultimately, the U.S. focused on volunteers for the National Guard, which was formed with the last Militia Act, and resorted to conscription if more were needed.
But as I'm sure you know, congress does not have plenary power to legislate. It has a small set of enumerated legislative powers. Here is the list of congress's legislative powers. 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads; 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; 13: To provide and maintain a Navy; 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. So which of these enumerated legislative powers allow it to either abridge or infringe on the ability of the people of the several states from acquiring, possessing, or carrying arms?
The punishment stemming from these legislative powers may abridge rights. The same goes for statutes.
