“In the Second Article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuabl; yet while regular peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium [safeguard] of the country…
The corollary from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No clause in the Constitution could by any rule oc construction be conceived to give Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagititious [infamous or scandalous] attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was assured to Protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688, and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence “suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.” An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them.”
—William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION, p.125-126 (2nd ed. 1828)
William Rawle was a Philadelphia lawyer appointed to be the United States District Attorney for Pennsylvania by President George Washington in 1791, and Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania from 1796 until his death, and the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar.
But I’m sure he simply didn’t understand that the right to bear arms was subject to whatever restrictions, conditions, and limitations that politicians in local, state, and Federal government could bleat effectly about being “reasonable”, and therefore legitimate limitations upon the right, because government would never, ever abuse power, and usurp authority not reserved to it, right?
This is why, and I’m sure that yet again I will catch hell for it, I say that we supporters of the Bill of Rights, and not just the Second Amendment, need to get the hell away from the term “Law abiding citizen.” With the stroke of a pen you can be turned into an outlaw. Including for things done when the law was not so. See the ex post facto portion of the Lautenberg Domestic Violence Act as well as later related portions of the Violence Against Women Act. Those that counter by saying that the taking of a right is not an additional punishment are disingenuous, practicing misandry, or outright lying. If not all three.
That governments abuse power to the extent that they may is a matter of history, including our own. The leaps and bounds towards an all powerful entity by the present administration though are astounding. That they very may well lead to a real live shooting civil war is not unlikely either.
It matters not what you or I think BIC. What matters is what a probably small group of individuals believe that are out there, and are willing to act on. It was, after all, a decided minority that started the revolution upon which this nation was founded.
Simply put we could end up with a rather wide spread bloody mess here in these not so United States of America in the not to distant future.
The difference is that they have their standing armies now…