A review of a book that is likely to play a significant role in the upcoming SCOTUS case. The notion that the prohibition of carrying a gun off one’s own property is not a blatant violation of the Second Amendment is insane. It renders the phrase “keep and bear arms” meaningless.
14 thoughts on “The Right To Bear Arms”
Notice how much of the book (as described in the review) has to refute present day reinterpretations of history, such as interpreting (research by other authors, apparently mentioned in the book) a 1328 statute in England as being relevant to a present day court case (Young v. State of Hawaii):
That’s a pretty selective quoting of the material too with the parts about concealed firearms, worn by people contriving to commit crimes against others, being conveniently dropped.
Par for the course though why a judge would put up with that doesn’t take much imagination to figure out.
“[i]n 1350, Parliament specifically banned the carrying of concealed arms.” Young quotes the statute: “[I]f percase any Man of this Realm ride armed [covertly] or secretly with Men of Arms against any other…it shall be judged…Felony or Trespass, according to the Laws of the Land.”
Another important point is “riding with Men of Arms”. What they’re talking about is an aspect of English life that they didn’t get under control until the late 1500’s or early 1600’s, which was both organized banditry, cross border raids (along Wales and Scotland’s English borders), and powerful members of the gentry sometimes fielding what were essentially small standing armies, sometimes using them to attack other gentlemen in their castles or estates to avenge their honor or settle disputes.
Parliament had to pass a great deal of measures to rein that behavior in, including extremely large fines for violations, which they often wouldn’t collect, but would hold over a noble’s head to pressure him into compliance.
Yale’s 2009 history 251 course, “The History of Early Modern England”, covered this subject in the first fifteen minutes of (link that should be the start of lecture 15).
I recommend the whole course, especially given that Yale’s current course is probably a bunch of Critical Race Theory about how every British person in the period was an evil white oppressor.
I can recommend the Political Philosophy and Old Testament/Hebrew Bible courses.
…[T]he assertions of some (including the Vermont Supreme Court in its 2021 Vermont v. Misch decision) that “bear arms” meant solely to carry arms while serving in a militia.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
– George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
The term “regulated” at the time of the Constitutional Convention meant practiced, proficient, disciplined, and thus “made regular”. The concept of “regulations” as a set of rules having the force of law, issued by unelected bureaucrats, didn’t fully form until the 20th century. The “well regulated militia” of the Second Amendment is then “the whole people except for a few public officials” who are practiced, proficient and disciplined in the use of arms.
We all “serve” in the militia. However, some of us are slackers…
And you can’t just show up and be proficient with an arm unless you’ve already been practicing with it. The Kentucky militia only met for two days a year. The fall meeting was held after the corn had been harvested, and was almost always practicing marching in around in a bunch of cornstalks, so we came to be known as the cornstalk militia. So far as I can tell, they didn’t teach people how to shoot, just how to work together in formation. Lots of people didn’t even bother to bring their guns. Everybody hated it so we quit doing it.
I very much doubt if people like former Justice Kennedy give one wit as to the intent of the framers in crafting the 2nd Amendment. He could not have seriously believed that the 2nd was intended by said framers to only applied to the interior of ones home. He/they think they know better than the framers, it is up to them to decide what the Constitution “means” according to their idea of what is in the public’s best interest. What us the serfs think in unimportant.
“Sammy Gravano Views on Gun Control. Thoughts from Sammy The Bull Gravano.”
But what of my squire? Who will carry my ammo belts and feed them to me whilst I am in body armor astride my war horse?
Surely cometh the fall tis when the bullet falleth upon thy helmet. No?
“Alas,” explained Goodgulf.
“Alackaday,” Orlon agreed.
Is “Orlon” a character in Tolkein’s “Lord of the Rings” or in the Harvard Lampoon “Bored of the Rings”?
Orlon from the fabled land across the Polyestuary.
“ Is “Orlon” a character in Tolkein’s “Lord of the Rings” or in the Harvard Lampoon “Bored of the Rings”?”
The latter, of course.
I got Halbrook’s book from Amazon last night, and have been unable to put it down. Halbrook’s historical scholarship is impressive – nay, breathtaking. Yet his presentation is not only readable, it’s riveting. I highly recommend this book.
Comments are closed.