Well, following the precise language of the COTUS would have eliminated slavery shortly after ratification. "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." (*** mine)
Wrong, that is not the entity "empowered by the Constitution" to do so, not even close. That power solely resides with the Supreme Court. That is why they can throw out any law that Congress passes if they think it does not comply with the Constitution. Checks and balances my friend, checks and balances.
There is a difference between "having the power", and "mandating". Until the Civil War, it was the militia that armed itself. In fact, it was a law that all adult males not only possess a firearm in working condition, but appear multiple times a year at a muster to prove that it was functioning and that they knew how to use it. And as the officers of the local militias were raised locally and elected their own officers, a lot of wealthy individuals became Captains, Majors, Colonels, and higher simply because they had the money to offer their unit that if they were elected to be the commander they would "give them stuff". That largely changed by the Civil War, as the advances of weaponry quickly made that pointless. Having multiple calibers of weapons of a dozen different makes was of no real matter when everybody used a flintlock and part of their kit was a bullet mold and crucible to make their own bullets. But by that time the primer cap was quickly becoming the standard, as was the Minie' ball of a single caliber in a prepared paper cartridge. That mandated that the military start to standardize the weapons the militia used, primarily for the ease of logistics. If somebody wants a good look into what serving in a "Colonial Militia" was like, I suggest watching "The Patriot". One thing that was highly accurate but commonly overlooked was what Mel Gibson's character would do between battles. Part of the kit that everybody had at that point was a crucible and bullet mold to fit their rifle. The government would supply the various units with powder and lead ingots, it was up to the individuals to then make their own bullets. And that was because making bullets was not hard, and there were likely a half dozen or more calibers in the hands of those fighting. And in their down time after a battle they would use that lead and their supplies to make more bullets. That ended with mass production and standardization in the 1860s.
I have actually read both of them, as well as all the others that have been passed over the centuries. But essentially all that did was authorize the President to "Nationalize" the militias. They were still locally organized, trained, and equipped. It simply authorized the Chief Executive in time of need the power to organize them into a single "Army" for national defense. And I have quoted it a great many times over the years. I especially love this part. Notice, it very clearly states that the individuals will arm themselves. They are not to be given arms, they have to acquire all of these things themselves and maintain them.
Yet Congress was empowered to write the Militia Acts. I've never claimed that individuals don't have the right to keep and bear arms.
Between both sides, over 30,000 in total. The main reason the British won that war was simply because their colonies had significantly higher populations than the French colonies did. The American Colonies mustered around 25,000 militia for that war, where as the French could only muster somewhere around 10,000 militia. For both the French and the British that was just a "sideshow", and not a major "war". Like the "War of 1812", which is actually two different wars depending on who you are talking to. To the Europeans, that was a war against Napoleon (which resulted in an awesome orchestra piece that requires tuned cannons). It is only the Americans that use that term to refer to the war between them and the British (and they got a poem that became their National Anthem and can also be performed with tuned cannons). The French and Indian War was simply a sideshow for the Seven Years' War in Europe. And both the British and French were primarily using their militaries in fighting in Europe. The majority of those who fought in North America were local militias and whatever forces each nation already had in the region when that war broke out. In fact, one interesting factor in that war was that the British (being British) provided their militias with a huge quantity of their own standard military musket of the time. In this case it was the "Long Land Pattern" of the "Brown Bess" musket in .75 caliber. They shipped tens of thousands of those to the colonies, in order to arm their militias with a standard weapon that was superior to what the French had (the Charleville Model 172. The 1728 was a .69 caliber weapon, with a range of around 100 yards. Where as the Brown Bess had a range of 300 yards with a heavier ball. And the British took advantage of their greater industrial power in several interesting ways. For one, they standardized all of their rifles off of that pattern. Their Marines used a variant that used almost all of the same parts, as did their Dragoons. And as they wore out through use, the British even went so far as to adopt different bores so as the barrel wore down they would be rebored to a higher caliber (up to .80 caliber) and remain in service. And that is something that in many ways bit them in the butt in 1775 and afterwards. As most of the early Colonial militia were using those very rifles against them. And until the Civil War, domestically made copies called the "Springfield Musket" was what the US provided their own military.
And as the barrel wore down would provide new molds to make larger bullets. Unlike today, rifles in that era were just another tool. Used for defense as well as putting food on the table. And they were expensive tools, but a well made musket could last for 2 or 3 generations. So when use caused the barrel to increase in diameter due to wear, you got a mold to make larger caliber bullets. In fact, many of the first "shotguns" were simply muskets where the wear was so extreme that a large powder load behind a large ball was no longer safe. So they started to use a smaller powder charge with multiple smaller bullets. That was right at the cusp of standardization and mass production. Most weapons people in the Colonies before 1754 were not standardized, and made by individual craftsmen. This meant a large variation in calibers, even between two rifles by the same maker. Most tended to use a variant of the "lost wax" casting to make a mold that was actually created for the specific rifle. Only nations could afford to do things like have a mass produced weapon, it was beyond what individuals could buy or make.
Probably, but you should know that accuracy is a big deal to me. Yes, Congress is empowered to create laws. But only the Supreme Court is empowered to determine if they are "Constitutional" or not.
I didn't say that SCOTUS didn't determine Constitutionality. That's been the case since Marbury v Madison. I claimed that Congress has the power to regulate the militia. They have no authority over the individual right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, and no. The "Militia" is the population, and the population is the militia. They can only "regulate it" within the bounds of the Constitution. Nothing more and nothing less. They can not strip away the rights to own firearms, as that would be in violation of the Constitution. Just as in the modern era the "Fourth Amendment" protects media including radio, television, and the Internet even though the actual text of the document only says "Press". And most of Congress is aware enough of that that nationally, few of their laws are in violation of the Constitution because they know the Supreme Court would strike it down if they did. By far, the majority of "laws" overturned by the Supreme Court are made at the state and local level, where those that make them often only think of their own wants and not of the laws of the nation as a whole. They only have the authority that the Constitution granted them, which is held in check by the other two branches. And in the US, that is really a very distinct but critical fact. Congress does not in reality have "power", they have "authority", and they are really not the same thing at all. And that authority can be checked by either of the two other branches at need. This is something I learned almost 5 decades ago, and it is still as real now as it was then.
Gun laws varied by state, and in many cases were based on race, so Congress didn't have the last word for most of our history re gun laws, nor could Congress restrict a state's rights to qualify who could be in a militia; the history of gun control is all over the place.Even in 'the Wild West' gun control was common in a lot of towns, and for good reason; drunks and gamblers with guns were not fondly regarded and welcome. Clayton Cramer has some decent essays on The Racist Roots of Gun Control worth a read. Here is more on that topic from other sources with different biases. https://harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-135/racist-gun-laws-and-the-second-amendment/ https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-second-amendment/the-racist-roots-gun-control
The Constitution was written to delineate what the Federal govt. could do or not do. The states had more rights to control their own systems. For example, the 1st Amendment didn't prevent the individual state govts. from establishing a favored Christian sect as a favored sect.Several states had them, the last to do away with theirs being Massachusetts in 1834 or so, due to internal demographic changes, not a Supreme Court ruling or Federal demands. The 2nd didn't restrict state govts. from imposing their own restrictions and standards. All that came along later, with the rise of liberal interpretations of the Constitution.
The capacities of modern, high-powered, high-capacity weapons demands that one be trained in their use.
We are no longer a mainly rural population, were firearms training was a family thing. Mass urbanization does bring different needs re firearms safety. I have no problem with requiring a safety course for first time gun owners these days. It is a lot different now than when I was a kid and could go buy my own box of shells at the local convenience store and walk out to the lake carrying my rifle and practice when I was 10. High capacity or low capacity and power doesn't matter either way, really, when it comes to safe use. The cost of ammo is the major factor in restraint there.
And they were required to swear an oath, and those who refused were disarmed, and their guns given to others who had sworn an oath. So, some were given arms, and some were disarmed. So what?
Where is that written? Is a bog-standard AR-15 in .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO so much higher powered than weapons in the past? What is the purpose of the training? Better active shooters?
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 gave Congress the power to define the militia, and they've done so in five different Militia Acts over the years. In none of them was the the militia equal to the entire population. Today 10 USC 246 defines the militia, and it surely doesn't include everyone in the population. I've never claimed that Congress was given the authority over the individual right to keep and bear arms, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. The problem is that the branch charged with enforcing laws doesn't have the authority to restrict the individual right to keep and bear arms, but they do have the power, however illegitimately used, to restrict that right. Ask Abramski. Ask anyone who owned an AR pistol or bump stock.
Basic firearm training produces safer firearms handlers, and also educates them about the legal aspects. Lot of people are self trained, or trained by relatives, friends or military, but there are also many who buy guns and don't have any idea about firearms safety or legal aspects.
Yes. Including the parts that are inconsistent with the clear language of the COTUS. Hence, the durability of the slave system.
Someone you're the only person who seems to think that the Constitution requires that slaves be armed.
The The BOR, including the 2nd amendment, was a list of fundamental human rights. No government can ever have the right to infringe them. Of course, most if not all governments have the power and the will to violate fundamental human rights. Hence the world we live in.
