One Unconstitutional Law Implicates Many Gun Control Regulations

Constitution Glock iStock-697763612
One Unconstitutional Law Implicates Many Gun Control Regulations, iStock-697763612

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Laws can be interpreted many ways. We seek guidance from the court to know what is legal and what is not. The US Supreme Court has largely ignored the right to bear arms compared to the number of decisions the court has rendered in other areas. We don’t have enough decisions to draw a clear map of where our rights begin and end. The court recently issued an opinion on the right to bear arms in public. This case redefined the legal landscape and gave us a few rules to go by. Let’s look at the unanswered questions to see if we may draw further conclusions.

The recent ruling said that states may require carry permits, but they must issue them to ordinary people who are not criminals. Ordinary people must be able to carry a personal firearm in ordinary places where people congregate. Licensing cannot be excessively delayed or expensive.

Now we want to apply this ruling to other situations. We first look to the text of the Bill of Rights. Based on the text, are the actions in question covered by the Second Amendment. When in doubt as to the scope or applicability, we then consider the history of use when the Bill of Rights was ratified. We are to draw analogies from that period to the present day. There are no tiered level of examination or scrutiny. If the law in question materially limits the right to bear arms then, with remarkably few exceptions, the law is an infringement on the right to bear arms and unconstitutional.

  • The court said that the second amendment is a full right. We do not yet know how to treat the victims who were unjustly prosecuted under these unconstitutional laws. A handful of Democrat-controlled states charged about a hundred thousand people with the non-violent crime of carrying a firearm without a permit that the state refused to issue to them. Most of these victims were black and brown young men. How do we make the victims whole again after the state took their fortunes and years of their lives in prison?
  • If the right to bear arms in public is a full right, then why do I need to seek and receive dozens of permits to exercise that right as I travel from state to state? We did not have to do so in the 1790s.
  • There was no general prohibition outlawing the bearing of arms in churches when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified. State laws that limit the bearing of arms in churches are an infringement and unconstitutional.
  • There were no widespread and broadly applied state laws restricting the right to bear arms in taverns and inns. State laws that limit the right to bear arms as we travel and eat today are an infringement on the right to bear arms and are unconstitutional.
  • There were no widespread and broadly enforced laws in the 1790s requiring that firearms be stored in an inoperable condition. Those laws today are an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
  • There were no general prohibitions restricting the right to bear arms on ferries, barges, and stages, the cutting-edge of mass transportation at the time. State laws restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying on a subway, bus, ferry, or train today are an unconstitutional infringement on our rights.
  • There were no general prohibitions against carrying arms at a horserace or at a public amphitheater. Those were the stadiums of their day. Today, state laws restricting law-abiding citizens from carrying their personal firearms at a stadium that receives public funds are an infringement and unconstitutional.
  • In the 1790s, there were no laws outlawing the bearing of arms in hospitals. Denying a doctor, nurse, technician, staff-member, or a visitor their right of self-defense is an infringement on the right to bear arms.
  • The laws of the 1790s did not create a two-tiered system of rights where politicians, judges, and other government officials were allowed to carry a firearm in public but ordinary citizens were disarmed. The exceptions may be inside a prison or jail, a courtroom, or inside the statehouse when the legislature is in session. Disarming citizens who are out in public, while politicians are free to go armed, is an infringement of the right to bear arms.
  • Citizens of the 1790s did not face broad legal prohibitions from bearing personal firearms that met or exceeded the performance of arms born by the military forces or law enforcement agents of that day. We must either restrict our military and police to use only the man-portable weapons we allow civilians to carry today, or we must allow civilians to carry weapons used by our military and police. Anything else is an infringement.
  • According to this Supreme Court, the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated right and not a lessor right than any other. That means our right to bear arms cannot be removed without due process in a court of law. Gun owners are assumed innocent until proven guilty and have the right to face their accuser. The accused has the right to be represented by a qualified lawyer. If necessary, the state must promptly provide that lawyer in the form of a public defender. Like any other right, false accusations and malicious prosecution can result in a suit for damages.
  • A sheriff of the 1790s knew the criminals in his county. Today, a policeman can check my license,  my vehicle registration, and my legal status in seconds from the roadside. We can process an ID and credit card from around the world equally quickly for a few cents. That means it should take no more than a minute to perform a background check and it should cost pennies at most. Once we have done one background check to own a firearm, then repeated background checks when we want to buy ammunition, secure a carry permit, or to buy another firearm, are an abuse of the right to bear arms.

Look at this cursory list. Now consider how these rights must be defended in dozens of states. I am clearly not a lawyer but there is still a lot of work to do in the courts. Also, I am fallible. There may have been widely enforced firearms laws from the 1790s that I missed. Please share new sources of historical information with me as you find them.


About Rob Morse

The original article is posted here. Rob Morse writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, at Second Call Defense, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob was an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.Rob Morse

 

Subscribe
Notify of
29 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Laddyboy

I am wondering what the Maryland State Police and the gun grabbers, bfrosh, are going to do next. Will the “three” requirements continue with the “FOURTH” SUBJECTIVE DECISION NOW REMOVED. The requirements in Maryland are condensed, as a Citizen must: 1.) Guard or transfer a banks’ or organization’s money. 2.) OWN a business – might be carrying money. 3.) Have CURRENT court PROOF you are in danger of being SHOT! . These 3 – three requirements eliminate 99% of Legal Law Abiding Maryland Citizens from obtaining an EXTREMELY STRICT, VERY LIMITING CARRY “PERMIT”. The final cost of this permit is… Read more »

Tank

These & other issues were already hashed out long ago. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what the carefully chosen words used mean. We know this because of the past twistory of the Magna Carta – Bill of Rights – US Constitution etc. natural progression to break away from Ruling Masonic UK Crown the House of Windsor/Sax-Colburg/Mergovingian Bloodlines say so. They already run & rule the existing system that is being destroyed & dying in progress. It doesn’t mean something else because some did/misinformed lymbic brained barking moonbat Bohemian progressive marxist dolt was given a pulpit by his Puppet Masters… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Tank
Chuck

No argument here. I would add that Non Violent Felons, that have discharged their debt to society, should have their full 2nd Amendment Rights fully restored. That too, is how it was in 1790. The NFA, and all subsequent legislation, including the recent Safe Communities Act, are Unconstitutional. Any Law, that modifies (read that as effectively AMENDS) the 2nd Amendment, violated Article V of the Constitution. Congress can propose Amendments or propose Changing/modifying/Amending existing Amendments, but they are denied the power to actually change or amend said Amendments. That power precides solely with the State’s Legislatures. In passing these “Amendings,”… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by Chuck
Tionico

Oh Rob, you are SO stinking practical and logical. Would that even the tenth part of our politicians, lwyers, and courts were even a tiny bit as logical as you show here. Here is one thing, supporting your positio: quote: “There was no general prohibition outlawing the bearing of arms in churches when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ratified.” In FACT most of the colonies and towns had laws COMPELLING at least the men to bear arms as they made their way to Sabbath meetings and whilst there. I know of one incident where this turned out… Read more »

musicman44mag

Hi Rob. Out here in OreGONEISTAN the police run your car license and your record and dispatch tells the police if you have a carry permit so the police know if you might be armed or not. My understanding is that they can ask if you have your gun on you but you are not required to tell them however the law enforcement trainers for carry permit said it is best to tell them yes if you are, but if they ask for your gun to say, have I committed a felony and tell them that they have not been… Read more »

Tionico

When I took my mandatory joke of a three hour “class” to quaify for MY Oregon Mother May I Card, the insrructor covered this subject. You are not required to volunteer the informantion If asked you must answer turthfully. If you say you ARE armed, their next move will be to produce your Mother MayI Card. They might ask to inspect the weapon, I cannot remember the actual LAW starting t this point in the “contact” but I do know wisdom dictates that if you do not comply they can and almost certainly will provoke you to the point of… Read more »

musicman44mag

I know what you mean about going there. I only drive through on my way to Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota. I didn’t know the bars are gray, I thought they were black. Hum.

I understand your wanting to fully comply so you don’t get provoked or go to jail but unless you have committed a felony, they have no reason to request your gun. I have a problem with authority that abuses it’s power or doesn’t know what it’s parameters are.

Take care.

nrringlee

Natural law based liberties have been systematically deconstructed by the Progressive Movement since the 1880’s. They used and. still use the theory of incrementalism as their main litigation tactic to deconstruct said natural law protected rights. You see, the fundamental premises of our Republic are Judeo-Christian assumptions about divinely granted rights. Progressives reject that. They believe politics and political power is the be all and end all of human existence and trumps any natural law foundation. There exists a remnant in our country who still literally cling to their Bibles and their guns, me being one of them for all… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by nrringlee
WeWereWarned

“All men are created equal” That was to make sure the low iq folks knew that our rulers and laws were not ordained by God, and disobeying them was not a sin, like the Church of England did to control the Founders. Sam Adams was a much better man and American, than his holy roller cousin John. The Yankees used religion to justify their identity politics to suspend the Constitution and harm the defenders of the Constitution, the Southern Whites. The war of northern aggression was no different than todays liberals using identity politics with illegal and legal immigration to… Read more »

Last edited 1 month ago by WeWereWarned
swmft

you are mistaking progressives in churches as conservatives, they are not they have been infiltrating churches for years to control young minds same as they have done to schools

Mystic Wolf

The one thing we do not need is a Convention of the states! If that were to happen with the way so many politicians think about guns and our freedoms as well as the rights we have, a Convention of the states would be a total disaster. The politicians would in effect rewrite the CONSTITUTION into what they want and in turn take every last freedom we have. Look at how ALL of the satanic DEMONcrats are when it comes to our gun rights, look at chicago you cannot buy a gun there look at new york same thing no… Read more »

swmft

problem lies with the fact there are progressive forms of religion, Unitarians and others that undermine the defense of self as for created equal sam colt made people equal big and bad does not put one in charge when small and armed is present

JMacZ

“We” are the “People”! The illegal border crossers are NOT. They’re already criminals for ignoring our laws.

Bill

Good thoughts and comments! Let the court clearance of these restrictions commence!

musicman44mag

and now is not soon enough. Kommiefornia is already talking about how they are going to circumvent the ruling and not follow it.

Greg K

How do I remove profile? not into censorship

Greg K

“The People” means all the people. Not exclusionary in any way, other than custodial incarceration or care. Thomas mentioned that Law Abiding is some sort of subset of “The People.” It was an unfortunate statement at best. The 2nd doesn’t parse out exceptions to “Keep,” or “Bear.” In other words there are no qualifiers on where you “Keep” your arms, or the manner in which you “Bear” them. Even more interesting is that it doesn’t qualify “Arms.” According to our founders we could have Nukes! However this is not the most interesting thing of all. “No Bill of Attainder.” It’s… Read more »

Mystic Wolf

According to the politicians the only people there are, are those that are rich and well connected

swmft

artical 1 should block jan 6 committee but rules for thee

Tionico

The Fourteenth Article of Ammendment spells out that “the people’ are “subject to the jurisdiction” where they are. In other words, some guy paying a “coyote” a grand to escort him across an invisible line in the sand of the Sonora Desert does not make that guy “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and thus not part of “we the people”. That two letter word”OF is a strong one. It means pertaining to subject to, part of, these United States of America. We the people OF comprise this natio. Not any two bit Tom Dick or Pedro that happens to wake… Read more »

Russn8r

Great article, 1 nit:

~”enumerated: can’t take w/o due process in court. presumed innocent, right to face accuser, qualified rep, false accusation-malicious prosecution can yield damages”

Taking RKBA is a penalty fit only for a crime. Gun groups must stop claiming that adjudication without swift recourse to fair jury trial is full due process. It circumvents the Dec of Indy, 2A-4A-5A-6A-8A-9A-10A-13A-14A.

“What a bore proving a crime to a jury before taking guns.”

“So call it adjudication like the Sovs!”

The Framers saw jury trial as a check on tyranny, as critical as 2A. Can’t work if gvt denies it.

Trial by Jury Alexander Hamilton.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
Russn8r

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

…injuries & usurpations….Tyranny…let Facts be submitted to a candid world…

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”

Adjudicating RKBA away, without swift recourse to fair trial by jury, is tyranny.

Trial by Jury Jefferson.png
Mystic Wolf

Well said

Russn8r

Oooh, lookie, the Glow Job posse is already busy.

“He has sent hither swarms of cowardly Sock Puppets to downvote us.”

Agents.png
Last edited 1 month ago by Russn8r
musicman44mag

I didn’t see any down votes on your posts until this one.

Tionico

who cares about “votes” anyway?

Greg K

In some cases 1A; If they take your arms for something you said. Becasuse your arms are generally worth more than $20 and this must be a form of “Common Law” then the 7th is violated as well.

Raconteur

Interesting point. Red flag laws are not criminal laws, therefore civil law and fall under the 7th Amend. Wow, this is getting complicated and might be an approach the gun prohibitionists never saw coming.

nrringlee

An inherent power under trial by jury is jury nullification. Juries can find laws obnoxious to our Constitution and find people innocent based on that nullification. Law school graduates, mostly deluded progressives will try to argue the point but their heads swim in case law and not in real theory of jurisprudence. One such case of jury nullification happened right under the noses of the progressives in DC. The Sussmann verdict is a clear case of jury nullification. The prosecution amply proved the elements of the crime, the jury simply disregard the evidence and declared the law moot. If that… Read more »