Can New Yorkers carry guns? A 700 year-old law may inform Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 5 months ago
When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments Wednesday in a closely watched guns case, the discussion won’t start with the last landmark ruling on firearms from 2010, or even with the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791.
Instead, attorneys on both sides will likely reach back to a 700-year-old English law – and a debate over the influence it had on the framing of the Constitution.
[ … ]
That has drawn both sides of the case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, into an intense battle over a statute from 1328 that some historians say informed the Framers’ views of when people may carry their guns in public. The Statute of Northampton regulated the carrying of “arms” in public places.
Briefly, I couldn’t care less what English common law says about anything. The colonists fought a war over many things, including gun control (see Kopel, “How the British Gun Control Program Precipitated the American Revolution“).
The colonists fought a war against the government to overthrow tyranny. It’s ridiculous and sophomoric to pretend that they ever assumed that men wouldn’t engage in RKBA, or that they wouldn’t turn those guns against tyranny.
Presuppositions. This is the stuff of life. The 2A makes no sense unless seen in the light of the lives of the men who wrote it and their own assumptions, value judgments and world and life views.
Any lawyer who begins with, discusses or ends with English common law isn’t worth his weight in salt.
On November 2, 2021 at 10:11 pm, Hudson H Luce said:
In 1328, they were the King’s subjects, and in the Commonwealth countries and in the UK they are still subjects, notwithstanding unwritten bills of rights and other such things. Royal Assent is still required for Acts of Parliament to become law, the Queen may refuse her assent, and that’s it – and the Monarchy isn’t subject to elections. Here, it’s different – we are citizens in a Republic, and our ancestors fought to make it that way. The ancestors who didn’t like it moved to Canada or back to England. Citizens have rights, inherent and inalienable, and one of those rights is to keep and bear arms. And by “bearing arms”, it is meant that they may be transported over land and water, either on one’s person, or in one’s vehicle, whatever form that vehicle may be. And Congress is forbidden from infringing that right – although they do as a matter of course, as they do for all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights. And it’s up to the citizens to enforce those rights against infringement, and this has not happened in an effective way, hence the present situation.
On November 3, 2021 at 12:55 am, Jimmy the Saint said:
Enh, if the Supremes ask your lawyer how English common law would apply, your lawyer had best have a very, very good answer or you lose. It’s that simple. Power gets what it wants, but if you’re really lucky (or very skillful) you can sometimes steer it towards wanting what you want, too.
On November 3, 2021 at 8:50 am, Fred said:
stare decisis is how post revolution Constitutional Law got changed back into pre-war British common law. Under constitutional law; rules, ordinances, and attempts at law contrary to the baseline constitution which is supreme, are no law at all and are null, void, and of none effect. But, we don’t have a constitutional law system, we have stare decisis, which is common law.
We’ve been dragged back into the very system men died to end. The supreme law of the land says “shall not be infringed” Any attempt at reducing this is not only an act of war according to law, by also by way of war doctrine, history, and God’s word.
There’s no way around it, reducing a man’s ability to make war is an act of war. That’s just a fact.
The government of the US is not our own. A body (or anybody) that seeks to leave you defenseless clearly has designs on your life.
The government of the US has certainly gone a whoring. Divorce, maybe bloody, but divorce indeed. But I don’t think we have it in us to effect such a separation. So many cakes, so many circuses, so much comfort and ease.
On November 3, 2021 at 9:45 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Jimmy,
Well, if the supreme court jesters bring it up, they’ll have to deal with it.
Say to them exactly what I said here. Let the chips fall.
Their decision isn’t going to change anything where I live or where most people live. So just let NY become more of the shithole it already is and people will flee like they should.
On November 3, 2021 at 12:55 pm, MTHead said:
Spot on Fred. The only thing I would change is the separation. We shouldn’t be willing to give up one stone the lord has given to us. And blessed us with.
Those that don’t know, won’t learn, or don’t want to understand something as simple as the constitution have no place here any longer. We’ve tried being nice again. With the same result. Them wanting to murder us for not giving over our very souls. And the souls of our children.
If the 2A cannot be seen in the light of god fearing men. Having just fought a blood-soaked war for freedom. Against the worlds best standing army. Having every trick at the tyrant’s hand used on them.
Then those people making those decisions, and calling for those decisions enforcement, have no place among us. And should never again. Be they whomever.
America was founded and blessed for and by the glory of god. And we should be willing to divide it with Satan’s morons? Better to die fighting.
On November 3, 2021 at 2:27 pm, Ned said:
Saw this this morning on Jeff Childers Coffee & Covid:
“Democrat Eric Adams won the New York City mayoral race, replacing outgoing de Blasio and promising to uphold all de Blasio’s Covid policies. He’s also promised he is going to solve the mushrooming crime problem in the Big Apple by yanking the guns away from law-abiding citizens. His theory is that once the criminals see that victims can’t fight back, the crooks will be totally demoralized and probably head for a different city where people still have some fight left in them. Or something. It’s hard to follow that man’s logic. Good luck, New Yorkers.”
Those Big Apple people appear to love the crap they’re mired in. Easy enough for me to stay away.