How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

What I'm ASKING, not saying, is what research do you have to rebut the author's. Citations, not opinions. Re: Miller

On May 15, 1939 the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice McReynolds, held: The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held:

  1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506,[2] and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177.
  2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178.

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.


Does these mean that a well regulated militia, ie, we the people, should possess only weapons whose use could contribute to the common defense???


Combat shotguns for military use are mostly similar to the police riot shotgun; but the military versions may have provisions to mount a bayonet and may be fitted with ventilated steel or plastic hand guards over the barrel to reduce the danger of a soldier burning his hand on the hot barrel during rapid fire. Riot shotguns are also more likely to trade off the increased magazine capacity for the decreased size that entails; for example, a combat model would be more likely to have a 51 cm (20 inch) barrel and up to a 10-round capacity, while riot shotguns are often found with barrels of 35 to 46 cm (14 to 18 inches) and a capacity of 5 to 8 rounds.
 
True or False? "A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.
false. there were mixed opinions across the spectrum dependent upon a persons political ideology, however, as I had said previously, there are at least a dozen court cases (and one supreme court case) that specifically denotes that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

True or False? "Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise."
this is also false. again, several court cases including dredd v. scott specifically states that it would provide black people with the right to bear arms.

True or False? "The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government."
the NRA did not start the public argument and political maneuvering of the 2nd Amendment. that was started in the early 30s by the FDR administration in order to allow gun laws and it was actually done with the assistance of the NRA.


True or False? "“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” ...in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored."
That is because for two centuries it was widely recognized as being an individual right. It wasn't until the democrats started torturing the commerce clause to fuck with the bill of rights.

True or False? "Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government. “Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon."
what is it you are trying to say here? if you think the militia was created simply to back the government, you would be wrong.

True or False? "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
This is most definitely false. there were numerous commentaries represented to the people of the colonies that specifically stated that congress had no power to disarm the militias/people. that the people were rightly entitled to all of their arms of war. this is what the people voted to ratify, it's what was represented to them and understood by them. In 1986, the US Senate held a committee and published their own findings about the 2nd Amendment, concluding that it did indeed protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.
 
True or False? "Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia."
declining to rule doesn't mean that they categorically state that it isn't a right. Dred v. Scott specifically states that it would provide newly freed blacks the RIGHT to own guns.

True or False? "The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.”
this is why I call the NRA 'Negotiate Rights Away. how about you actually pick a side about whether you want to support or oppose the NRA?

True or False? "Cut to 1977. Gun-group veterans still call the NRA’s annual meeting that year the “Revolt at Cincinnati.” After the organization’s leadership had decided to move its headquarters to Colorado, signaling a retreat from politics, more than a thousand angry rebels showed up at the annual convention. By four in the morning, the dissenters had voted out the organization’s leadership. Activists from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pushed their way into power."
why wouldn't they? you're all about majority rules, right?

True or False? "The NRA’s new leadership was dramatic, dogmatic and overtly ideological. For the first time, the organization formally embraced the idea that the sacred Second Amendment was at the heart of its concerns. The gun lobby’s lurch rightward was part of a larger conservative backlash that took place across the Republican coalition in the 1970s..."
you can certainly look at it that way if you want to, but it seems to me that the people felt that the former NRA leadership wasn't doing their job, so they replaced them.

True or False? "The 1972 Republican platform had supported gun control, with a focus on restricting the sale of “cheap handguns.”
irrelevant.

True or False? "From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun."
again, irrelevant, despite the fact that they IGNORED court precedents and the minutes of the constitutional convention as well as the commentaries presented to the people ratifying the bill of rights.
 
I don't understand the NRA and other gun nuts hysteria. Some gun control refroms are needed. That doesn't equate Takin are guns.

Legitimate people will still be able to buy them. But wackos and criminals shouldn't. People on no fly lists shouldn't. They can right now.

1) So the government can decide to take away your rights without due process simply by putting you on a list?

2) What gun control reform do you propose we implement that isn't already in place?
 
It seems to me that anyone not actually illiterate understands that the Constitutional Amendment concerns the States' right to have an armed militia. What the nutters suppose it has to do with arming every ape in every tree escapes most people.
 
So start with these.

True or False? "A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

False. Unless you can provide evidence for the following: "longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum."

True or False?
"Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise."

False. Again... please provide evidence that they ruled otherwise prior to 2008 and provide examples


True or False?
"The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government."

False. Again, it is not the interpretation of the NRA. It is clear, as Billy has pointed out many times and you have ignored, that the Constitution is clear in regards to the rights of the people to bear arms. It is the anti-gun crowd that is continually trying to misconstrue the Constitution and the intent of the founders.

True or False?
"“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” ...in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored."

False. It wasn't ignored. It was assumed that only a complete moron wouldn't be able to figure out the intent of the 2nd. That said... feel free to provide evidence to support your ' this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions'

Where did you come up with that?

True or False? "Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government. “Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon."

Clarify what part you want a true/false to in the above. It is true that there was concern about the federal government being both too strong and too weak. AND?

True or False?
"There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

LMAO... you think the founders were going to talk about guns for recreation? Are you fucking kidding? Again... pretty much assumed that people would continue to hunt.

Also... definitely assumed that people could defend themselves. Your mindset is like those that need warning labels to tell them coffee is hot. The founders mindset was that people weren't that fucking retarded.



 
It seems to me that anyone not actually illiterate understands that the Constitutional Amendment concerns the States' right to have an armed militia. What the nutters suppose it has to do with arming every ape in every tree escapes most people.

Art. 1, Sec 10, Par 3 tells us you are incorrect. it specifically states that no state shall keep troops without the consent of congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
 
Fantastic article. Too long to post the full thing but a very good read that's sure to inflame gun lovers.

The Founders never intended to create an unregulated individual right to a gun. Today, millions believe they did. Here’s how it happened.

A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.

So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.

***

The Second Amendment consists of just one sentence: “A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today, scholars debate its bizarre comma placement, trying to make sense of the various clauses, and politicians routinely declare themselves to be its “strong supporters.” But in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored. The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon. On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Though state militias eventually dissolved, for two centuries we had guns (plenty!) and we had gun laws in towns and states, governing everything from where gunpowder could be stored to who could carry a weapon—and courts overwhelmingly upheld these restrictions. Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

***
Cue the National Rifle Association. We all know of the organization’s considerable power over the ballot box and legislation. Bill Clinton groused in 1994 after the Democrats lost their congressional majority, “The NRA is the reason the Republicans control the House.” Just last year, it managed to foster a successful filibuster of even a modest background-check proposal in the U.S. Senate, despite 90 percent public approval of the measure. What is less known—and perhaps more significant—is its rising sway over constitutional law.

(Continued)

:good4u:
 
False. Unless you can provide evidence for the following: "longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum."

Burger was a lawyer and a judge for 55 years. I'll take his word for his experiences rather than your claim that he lied.

False. Again... please provide evidence that they ruled otherwise prior to 2008 and provide examples

...1876 in U.S. v. Cruikshank. The case involved members of the Ku Klux Klan not allowing black citizens the right to standard freedoms, such as the right to assembly and the right to bear arms. As part of the ruling, the court said the right of each individual to bear arms was not granted under the Constitution. Ten years later, the court affirmed the ruling in Presser v. Illinois when it said that the Second Amendment only limited the federal government from prohibiting gun ownership, not the states.

...The Supreme Court took up the issue again in 1894 in Miller v. Texas. In this case, Dallas' Franklin Miller sued the state of Texas, arguing that despite state laws saying otherwise, he should have been able to carry a concealed weapon under Second Amendment protection. The court disagreed, saying the Second Amendment does not apply to state laws, like Texas' restrictions on carrying dangerous weapons.

False. Again, it is not the interpretation of the NRA. It is clear, as Billy has pointed out many times and you have ignored, that the Constitution is clear in regards to the rights of the people to bear arms. It is the anti-gun crowd that is continually trying to misconstrue the Constitution and the intent of the founders.

Wrong. The NRA was founded to teach gun safety and promote competitive shooting. It didn't emphasize politics until the mid 1970s. "The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government."

False. It wasn't ignored. It was assumed that only a complete moron wouldn't be able to figure out the intent of the 2nd. That said... feel free to provide evidence to support your quote that 'this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions'. Where did you come up with that?

I didn't come up with it. Everything I posted comes from the article which apparently none of you read. Calling people "complete morons" is not a rebuttal to the claim.

Clarify what part you want a true/false to in the above. It is true that there was concern about the federal government being both too strong and too weak. AND?

I want the posters who said "this entire article is horseshit" or words to that effect admit that the 2nd didn't go through 2+ centuries of history untouched by controversy.

LMAO... you think the founders were going to talk about guns for recreation? Are you fucking kidding? Again... pretty much assumed that people would continue to hunt.

The author wrote "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision." If you think this is false, show me Madison's notes, ratification debates etc. that refute it.

Also... definitely assumed that people could defend themselves. Your mindset is like those that need warning labels to tell them coffee is hot. The founders mindset was that people weren't that fucking retarded.

Again, this isn't about my mindset. It's about the pro-gun crowd reading the article and refuting it with certifiable facts, not opinion and name-calling. Predictably you defaulted to the latter.






 
Suffice it to say that the gun monkeys will always be gun monkeys. Also suffice it to say that each day in EVERY way they are now losing their precious cover of the oft misinterpreted 2nd Amendment. I predict that in future years the gun monkeys will mostly have to be institutionalized. The USA will survive in tact and without them.
 
Suffice it to say that the gun monkeys will always be gun monkeys. Also suffice it to say that each day in EVERY way they are now losing their precious cover of the oft misinterpreted 2nd Amendment. I predict that in future years the gun monkeys will mostly have to be institutionalized. The USA will survive in tact and without them.

You're an idiot.
 
So start with these.

True or False? "A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

False. At that point in time Berger was speaking as a paid shill for Handgun Control Inc. A more instructive inspection of his views is to be found in an earlier Parade Magazine editorial he wrote.

True or False? "Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise."

I guess it's true that "many are startled to learn" only because so many are so ignorant of Supreme Court holdings / statements on the right to arms / 2nd Amendment. The general statement that Heller is the first time the Court recognized an individual right as being secured by the 2nd is false.

True or False? "The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government."

True I guess . . . But since the genesis of the "state's right" and "militia right" interpretations in the federal courts in 1942, the battle has been both legal and public perception. Well done NRA!

True or False? "“A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” ...in the grand sweep of American history, this sentence has never been among the most prominent constitutional provisions. In fact, for two centuries it was largely ignored."

True. It was pretty much uncontroversial; the meaning and what it secured was settled. Reconstruction and the Black Codes brought it back to the forefront with state laws forbidding Freemen to own guns (thus we have the 14th Amendment). It wasn't until the early 20th Century and collectivists and statists rose in power in the USA was the 2nd Amendment deemed a threat to them and their agenda. In 1942 two lower federal courts dismissed and ignored SCOTUS and inserted the "collective right" perversion in the federal courts. All Heller did was slap the lower federal courts back into the constitutional fold and invalidate the various "collective right" interpretations.

True or False? "Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government. “Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon."

True but both the Federalists and anti-Federalists understood the government being created was one of delegated / conferred powers; that all power first resided in the people and all that was not conferred was retained by them. Your theory demands we view the 2nd Amendment as a permission slip; that whatever the "right to keep and bear arms" is, it is entirely dependent upon the words of the 2nd Amendment for its existence (so the debate / argument is one of "interpretation"). If you were to apply the foundational principles to your theory it would just evaporate into nothingness for it is that oppositional to fundamental constitutional principles.

True or False? "There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Case in point right there . . . It's as if you actually believe that we don't have any rights unless the framers specifically mentioned them and "allowed" for them.
 
True or False? "Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia."

False, please cite the cases you believe support that statement.

True or False? "The NRA was founded by a group of Union officers after the Civil War who, perturbed by their troops’ poor marksmanship, wanted a way to sponsor shooting training and competitions. The group testified in support of the first federal gun law in 1934, which cracked down on the machine guns beloved by Bonnie and Clyde and other bank robbers. When a lawmaker asked whether the proposal violated the Constitution, the NRA witness responded, “I have not given it any study from that point of view.”

True. The NRA took gun control advocates at their word about NFA-34 that the law was targeted at criminal use. It was not a ban on machine guns, it required a $200 tax be paid when the ownership of the gun was transferred. Since then gun control advocates have done nothing but lie about their focus on criminals and it is clear that their real focus is disarming regular, law-abiding citizens. IOW, you blew your chances at extending the NRA's goodwill and cooperation. RE: the constitutionality of NFA-34, one must remember that unlike all gun control that has followed it, NFA-34 is written in the tax code and much wider latitude is given to Congress to tax things then to outright legislatively ban them.

True or False?[/B] "Cut to 1977. Gun-group veterans still call the NRA’s annual meeting that year the “Revolt at Cincinnati.” After the organization’s leadership had decided to move its headquarters to Colorado, signaling a retreat from politics, more than a thousand angry rebels showed up at the annual convention. By four in the morning, the dissenters had voted out the organization’s leadership. Activists from the Second Amendment Foundation and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms pushed their way into power."

True, that was a time of gun control momentum and it needed to be countered. The NRA leadership them was seen as complacent and asleep. They were replaced by the membership . . . So what?


True or False? "The NRA’s new leadership was dramatic, dogmatic and overtly ideological. For the first time, the organization formally embraced the idea that the sacred Second Amendment was at the heart of its concerns. The gun lobby’s lurch rightward was part of a larger conservative backlash that took place across the Republican coalition in the 1970s..."

True thank goodness.

And just a comment about that 1970's rightward shift, it was because so many Democrats were sick of the pacifism of McGovern; that movement of former liberals became the neo-cons of the 80's.

True or False? "The 1972 Republican platform had supported gun control, with a focus on restricting the sale of “cheap handguns.”

Because those laws targeting those guns ("Niggertown" Saturday night specials) primarily impacted the lower inner-city classes. Look at the 1976 DC handgun ban for instance. It became a bi-partisan effort after the 68 riots and when the demographics shifted in DC.

True or False? "From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun."

Does your source cite all those articles and how are we to know if the list is exhaustive? Are these articles staing that there is no federally enforceable right to be claimed under the 2nd even against federal laws or just no federally enforceable right against state gun laws . . . I might remind you that the 2nd was not incorporated until 2010 and I have seen some very disingenuous statements along the lines you are spouting here.

Another thing to be aware of though is throughout the 19th century, the barring of blacks form serving in the militia was used to disarm them. If it could be argued that RKBA provisions only secured a militia member's "right" to arms, then anyone outside the militia structure would have no enforceable right to arms. Much of the perversion of RKBA/2nd Amendment legal history can be traced back to those less than stellar practices (of course such decrees were never enforced on the white population).
 
Back
Top