Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jimmy the one

(2,717 posts)
25. state constitutional rkba's
Fri Nov 13, 2015, 12:29 PM
Nov 2015

Kang: As if it couldn't get any worse, you have the state constitutions.
Kentucky: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State.. (1792)
Vermont: The people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State (1777)
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; 1776).


Note that 'the right to bear arms for the state', should be construed as synonymous with a 'duty' to belong to militia.
As well, Kentucky added this: Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. (enacted 1891).

Tennessee gets special mention too: 1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
1834: "..free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime 1870.


Above are militia centric (exc Tennessee explicitly), rkba for both self & state. None individual only.

As teddyR might say, you 'forgot' these, kang:

Florida: 1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
(Lousiana) 1879: "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 abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed."
Louisiana (as late as 1974): The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. (1974).


Mississippi: The right .. shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons
Missouri: 1875: "That the right .. but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons
Montana: The right .. but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. (1889).
New Mex: 1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
NCarolina: 1868: "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; and, as... 1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."
Oklahoma: The right .. but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. 1907
Texas: .. the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Utah: 1896: .. the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

2nd Amendment showerthought... [View all] Kang Colby Nov 2015 OP
I know people like their guns itsrobert Nov 2015 #1
Actually... Kang Colby Nov 2015 #2
Don't spoil other people's romantic moments.... FSogol Nov 2015 #5
Well, some controllers say the best thing to do with explosive diarrhea... Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #6
What are arms? JonathanRackham Nov 2015 #26
history jimmy the one Nov 2015 #3
You forgot TeddyR Nov 2015 #10
arbitrary power of posters jimmy the one Nov 2015 #22
Actually TeddyR Nov 2015 #27
You are excluding a mountain of case law. (Verdugo-Urquidez, Emerson, etc.) Kang Colby Nov 2015 #19
This ^^^ beevul Nov 2015 #20
Very good post TeddyR Nov 2015 #21
pennsy minority rkba report jimmy the one Nov 2015 #24
Setting aside everything else that is wrong about your post TeddyR Nov 2015 #28
get new glasses jimmy the one Nov 2015 #29
sam adams proposal was withdrawn jimmy the one Nov 2015 #30
don't feel bad for us jimmy the one Nov 2015 #23
Your argument boils down to Kang Colby Nov 2015 #31
state constitutional rkba's jimmy the one Nov 2015 #25
The 2A. deathrind Nov 2015 #4
Re-read the Fourth. Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #7
The 4th. deathrind Nov 2015 #12
They seem to have equated them both in the same sentence. Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #13
Right off the top of my head one issue I have with your interpretation TeddyR Nov 2015 #17
The Second Amendment TeddyR Nov 2015 #8
There is a clear difference between the 4th and the 2nd. deathrind Nov 2015 #11
Thanks for the response and link TeddyR Nov 2015 #16
The 2nd was intended to do 1 thing - ensure the effectiveness of the Militias of the several States. jmg257 Nov 2015 #9
The right to own firearms should be understood at a primary part of natural law. ileus Nov 2015 #14
One small correction. branford Nov 2015 #15
There's a good bit of scholarly work that supports exactly that interpretation TeddyR Nov 2015 #18
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»2nd Amendment showerthoug...»Reply #25