« Award for my Dred Scott book | Main | Get woke, go broke »
Joyce Malcolm's new paper
It's posted on SSRN. It focuses upon the English and early American perceptions of a right to be armed outside of the house.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
Thanks for the link. It is a good read.
I'd suggest that FWB at least read the abstract of the paper before posting.
"Abstract
The right of self-defense is the core of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as the US Supreme Court has affirmed in two landmark decisions. The right does not, and cannot, stop at the domestic doorstep. Nevertheless there are those arguing that somehow the right “to bear arms” is confined to the home. This essay addresses this latest effort to deny the individual right to keep and bear arms that the Court has affirmed. It focuses on the right to carry a gun outside the home, mindful that the right to keep and bear arms, like other rights, included some practical restrictions. In reviewing the history, the crucial time for an understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment is the point in the evolution of the Anglo-American right when the amendment was drafted and added to the American Bill of Rights."
Read the abstract AND then began the paper.
Ass-u-me.
I wonder if people get the reference?
I take serious offense to the first sentence. The 2nd Amendment is NOT a grant or a guarantee of anything. The 2nd Amendment is an absolute statement of a Right endowed by the Creator, a Right that is inalienable, tied unseverably to the Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The 2nd is a statement that the government cannot in any way, shape or form infringe on that Right. The government is granted not a single power with which to legislate on the Right enumerated in the 2nd, as has been stated in the Federalist Papers. The government can say 'if you use your Arms to harm others without cause, then we will punish you' but there are no 'compelling government interests' in the Constitution. As I have said, "There ain't no good intentions clause in the Constitution!" What others did before is of little meaning since those actions were not done under color of the 2nd.
And the term, to bear, is much more broad than most take it to be. If 'to bear' is limited to the carrying of an Arm, that Arm is still useless for defense of self, family or country. The term, 'to bear', includes 'to use' since often the Right to keep and bear Arms was tied to 'to defense of themselves and the state' and if bear is limited to carrying, not much defense use can occur. The question arises that if the Framers of the BoR did not recognize that use was included in to bear, then why didn't they say 'the Right to keep, bear, and use' Arms in defense of themselves and their country.'