Mediaboss Marketing

Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *

I. Text of the Second Amendment and Related Contemporaneous Provisions II. Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions III. "The Right of the People" in Other Bill of Rights Provisions IV. Some Other Contemporaneous Constitutional Provisions With a Similar Grammatical Structure V. 18th- and 19th-Century Commentary A. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) B. St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803) C. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) D. Thomas Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law (1880) VI. Supreme Court Cases A. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) B. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 416-17, 449-51 (1857) C. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 551 (1876) D. Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 264-66 (1886) E. Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 286-87 (1892) F. Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538-39 (1894) G. Dissent in Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 635 (1896) (Field, J., dissenting) H. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 280 (1897) I. Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 597 (1900) J. Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 528 (1905) K. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 98 (1908) L. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644 (1929) M. Dissent in Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 78 (1947) (Black, J., dissenting) N. Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763, 784 (1950) (Jackson, J., for the majority) O. Knapp v. Schweitzer, 357 U.S. 371, 378 n.5 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., for the majority) P. Konigsberg v. State Bar, 366 U.S. 36, 49 & n.10 (1961) (Harlan, J., for the majority) Q. Dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149-51 (1972) (Douglas, J., dissenting, joined by Marshall, J.) R. Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 (1980) S. United States v. Verdugo- Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990) T. Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992) (dictum) U. Concurrence in Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 938-939 (1997) (Thomas, J., concurring) V. Dissent in Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., joined by Rehnquist, C.J., and Scalia and Souter, JJ.) VII. Relevant Statutes A. Militia Act of 1792 B. The currently effective Militia Act C. The Freedmen's Bureau Act (1866) D. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act (1986) VIII. Other Materials IX. State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions (Current and Superseded) A. Sorted by state, though including both current and superseded provisions B. Sorted by date, from 1776 to the present

These materials can be useful for discussing how the Second Amendment ought to be interpreted. I intentionally include more materials here than any teacher will likely use, to give people flexibility in picking and choosing.

Second Amendment: 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.

English Bill of Rights: That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law (1689). 1

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818). 2

Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792). 3

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780). 4

North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776). 5

Excerpt from:
Sources on the Second Amendment and Rights to Keep and ...

by Leyla Myers SAS Life Member

This past Mother's Day, I wasalone most of the weekend with my two boys,2 months old and almost 3 years old.Oh, what a funweekend that was! If you have kids, you knowthere is a bit of sarcasm inmy saying this. But I love them dearly, and every time I look at them, I thinkof two mothers.One is my mother, and the other is an unknown person that I saw years ago at a random Northern Virginia restaurant. These are two opposite images of two mothers - one helpless in the face of imminent danger; another confident in her ability to protect the child at any time, in any place. I want to be the image of that second mother - to be thefirst person to defend myself and my children. That is something my mother would never be able to do.

You see, I was born and raised in the greatest Soviet Union. When it's reignwas over, my family remained living in what is now an independent Azerbaijan Republic. Most aspects of our lives continued to be the same - shortage of food, grey life style, and a trust that the government knows best what is best for us and one more - that the government and the police will always protect us. My parents were average people, and never owned a gun. They did not have a good cause to own one. Thus,gun ownership as a right or an aspect of daily life did not exist in my mind, my life, my vocabulary. Not ever. No one I knew personally owed a gun. No one I knew ever mentioned a desire to have a gun. Yet I can think of at least three specific moments in my life back home when my safety and even my life was in imminent danger, and all of them happened near or within the walls of my home. Neither of my parents would have been able to defend me nor would I have been able to defend myself. I once asked a police officer if I should carry a folded knife to protect myself from a possibleassault and he told me not to even consider that because even if someone attacked me, if I used the knife I would be prosecuted, andthere would be no excuse for self-defense.

With the collapse of USSR came civil unrest and ethnic wars. My family was in the midst of one such war. One night, when Iwas 13, there were men walking from door to door looking for people like my father who had the misfortune to be born with the 'wrong ethnicity'.Now I know that this is called ethnic cleansing. By luck, my father had left the country a week before. If he was home that night, there would have been no chance of our survival. Since he was gone, my mother and grandmother stood at the door, and used their bodies as a shield between the men and my brother and I. They plead withthe men to spare our lives. The only thing my mother could use was her words and her body to protect us.The men had the weapons, the power and the right to decide what to do. We were lucky thatnight.Many other families were not so lucky.

I came to U.S. in2001 as an adult, alone. I had to learn basic things about life in America - how to buy groceries, choose an apartment, and decide where to go for shoppingandeating. I did not ask my friends or acquaintances, "Do you have agun?" or, "what is your view ongun ownership?"Then, two years after coming to U.S. and living in Virginia, I met myhusband, the gun owner. But even aftermonths of talking to him and others, I was not sureif gun ownership, or even more doubtful, that guncarrying is for me. I kept finding excuses of why I should not carry. I would tell myself and others that Idon't knowwhy I shouldtrouble myself with this liability. My husband is American-born and raised, so he gets to enjoy this right, not me. That was my thought and my excuse.I was not a mother then, not even thinking about starting a family. Then, one evening in Northern Virginia I saw the mother with a child in her hands and a gun in a holster enjoying a meal with friends at a restaurant.It waslike pieces of a puzzle finally falling in all the right places.Suddenly all the pro-carry arguments made sense and there was no turning back. No propaganda genius would ever change my mind, my thoughts on gun ownership. I still don't know who that woman was, but it is every woman who carries a firearm in Virginia whomI am thankful to.

So, today I am proud to be a U.S. citizen, a woman, a wife, a mother, and a gun owner who is ready to defend the lives of my dearest sons.With all due respect to my mother, I am not my mother's defenseless image.

Visit link:
Second Amendment Sisters - Self-Defense is a Basic Human Right

The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment:

Militia

The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

For a definition of today's militia as defined, by statute, in the United States Code, click here.

A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. (See Macnutt, Karen L., Militias, Women and Guns Magazine, March, 1995.)

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)

A brief summary of early U.S. militia history.

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

Read the original:
The Meaning of the Words in the Second Amendment

TYLER, TX (KLTV) - A Texas lawmaker says Second Amendment rights shouldn't stop at state lines. Senator John Cornyn is joining East Texas leaders and Second Amendment rights advocates Saturday to announce proposed legislation that would allow Texans with a concealed handgun license to carry legally in other states.

I think it's actually kind of a common sense provision, says gun rights advocate Dr. Scott Lieberman.

Senator Cornyn wants CHL holders to be able to protect themselves when they travel to other states.

You'd like to think that what's legal in one state should be legal in another state, says Dr. Lieberman.

Some states just don't recognize Texas' CHL, but Senator Cornyn's proposed Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act would fix that by requiring states to honor any other states' concealed carry permits.

Some people can be licensed to carry in one state, but when they cross the border they become a criminal, says Dr. Lieberman.

He says it's a lot like a driver's license.

You're licensed to drive in one state and you cross the border, you want to be able to keep on driving. I think it's the same thing for a concealed carry. If you're able to defend yourself in one state, it should be common sense that you should be able to defend yourself in any state, he explains.

Dr. Lieberman says it's also a balance between the Second Amendment and states' rights.

All the states became members of the United States by agreeing to certain principles. Those principles were outlined and agreed upon by all of these states in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. So, fundamental to being one of the states is accepting the Bill of Rights and ergo the Second Amendment, he says.

Read the original:
Texas lawmaker joining E. Texas leaders to announce concealed carry reciprocity legislation

PHOENIX -- Republicans in the Arizona Legislature are pushing a series of bills that would ensure gun owners' rights to sell and transfer firearms at gun shows, bring guns into public places and protect owners from having their weapons taken.

Arizona already has some of the strongest Second Amendment protections in the country, including the right to carry a concealed weapon without a permit and sell firearms at gun shows without a permit or background check. But Republicans in the House of Representatives said new laws will further protect those rights.

The House Military and Public Safety Committee passed House Bill 2527 in a 5-3 vote Thursday. Rep. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, said the bill would add the word "transfer" to an existing law so only the state legislature can regulate the transfer of firearms, in addition to storage and possession.

"There's no harm in that. I think it just adds to the rights of the second amendment," Kern said.

However, Sen. David Bradley, D-Tucson, said communities should be able to craft their own laws based on the Constitution.

"It's funny because sometimes we talk about local control, and when it's not convenient we view this as a restraint on Second Amendment rights," he said.

The House Military and Public Safety Committee delayed action on two other proposals, which representatives based on similar bills that Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed last session.

House Bill 2509 would make it a crime to take control of a person's legally owned firearm, except in the case of police officers and people whose "conduct is justified."

House Bill 2320 is designed to let concealed carry permit holders take their weapons into public buildings. Republican Rep. Brenda Barton said the bill honors people who have concealed carry permits by expanding the number of public places where they can take firearms.

Last week the committee passed House Bill 2300, which would allow former or current city, county and state prosecutors to carry concealed firearms in any jurisdiction.

Here is the original post:
Arizona Republicans push series of gun owners' rights bills