A Good Read

[Subdeacon Joe]

https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4347&context=flr

 

No idea why some of that text is struck through.

 

Quote

Prominent members of early American society also recognized a natural right to self-defense. A 1747 sermon in Philadelphia equated the failure to defend oneself, which it referred to as stemming from nature, with suicide: "He that suffers his life to be taken from him by one that hath no authority for that purpose, when he might preserve it by defense, incurs the Guilt of self murder .... Nature itself teaches every creature to defend itself.' 13 8 James Madison, recognizing the existence of "natural right," spoke of some proposed amendments, such as the right to trial by jury, as stemming from the social compact, while others, presumably including the Second Amendment, secured "the pre-existent rights of nature."1 39 St. George Tucker, again drawing on Blackstone, informed his readers that [t]he right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible .... In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game ... though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words... have been interpreted... o that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty. 140 In referring to the Second Amendment, William Rawle, U.S. district attorney, historian, and abolitionist, 14 1 after speaking of the general desirability of an effective militia, divorced the militia clause from the arms bearing one: "[A] well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state .... The corollary from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' 1 42 He continued, "No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people," contrasting the United States with England, where "the right was secured to protestant subjects only... and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence 'suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.' 14 3

Quote

In Miller, the Supreme Court's most recent case directly addressing the Second Amendment, the defendant challenged his conviction for violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), which prohibited possession of, among other weapons, a sawed-off shotgun without first paying a federal tax. 190 The government made two arguments for the NFA's constitutionality under the Second Amendment: First, it argued that the Amendment "gave sanction only to the arming of the people as a body to defend their rights against tyrannical and unprincipled rulers" and "did not permit the keeping of arms for purposes of private defense."'19 Thus, the right was "only one which exists where the arms are borne in the militia or some other military organization provided for by law and intended for the

protection of the state." 192 Second, the government argued that "the term 'arms'... refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals. ' 193 The Court relied on the government's second argument in holding that the NFA was constitutional. 194 The Court went on to say that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" in synergy with "assur[ing] the continuation and ... effectiveness" of the militia over which Article I, Section 8 granted Congress power. 195 Finally, the Court, citing ratification debates, legislative history, and "approved commentators," defined the term "militia" as "civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion": "[T]he Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.... And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

 

[Blackwater 53393]

Why is all of this stricken through?

[Subdeacon Joe]

2 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Why is all of this stricken through?

 

(Pointing to original post below the link)