PDA

View Full Version : Playing Devil's Advocate


E Pluribus Unum
04-20-2009, 3:53 PM
I have read the Nordyke opinion.

They incorporated through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. In order to have done this, they had to determine that the right to bear arms was "deeply rooted in this Nationís history and tradition".

We would all like to believe that gun control is a recent development. In the old west, people were prohibited from carrying firearms into the city. It was mandatory for all travelers to leave their guns with the Sheriff in many cities.

Could it then be argued that citizens have a right to carry firearms in unincorporated areas and their homes but nowhere else? Does the fact that the 2nd amendment pre-dates this trend simply mean that in the old west, those laws were unconstitutional but nobody ever fought them?

What are your ideas?

bulgron
04-20-2009, 3:58 PM
As far as I know, no one ever sued those old Western towns over their prohibition on carrying firearms. If lawsuits such as that never happened, then there's no court precedent to base an anti-argument on.

Also, since those prohibitions happened long after the constitution was originally ratified, originalists arguments do not seem to apply.

I mostly don't see this as something to worry about. But you never know, there could be case law out there that might trip us up.

Also, was there ever a broad prohibition on carrying guns in town in the old west, or was that aspect of the law simply reserved for drunken, hell-raising cowboys fresh off the trail? I mean, if I was a solid citizen of Dodge City (say, a Banker or a Lawyer), would I be allowed to carry even if the drunken cowboys could not?

elenius
04-20-2009, 3:59 PM
No doubt there were unconstitutional laws and regulations in the old west.

It seems to me that as the courts define the boundaries of the 2nd amendment with increasing precision, as they will be forced to, they will get into more and more difficult questions as to what it really protects, where there are no obvious clear cut answers.

Palindari
04-20-2009, 4:00 PM
Even then gun control didn't work ;)

Legasat
04-20-2009, 4:05 PM
No doubt there were unconstitutional laws and regulations in the old west.

It seems to me that as the courts define the boundaries of the 2nd amendment with increasing precision, as they will be forced to, they will get into more and more difficult questions as to what it really protects, where there are no obvious clear cut answers.

Forgive me, but it seems pretty obvious and clear cut to me...

Just one man's opinion

E Pluribus Unum
04-20-2009, 4:06 PM
As far as I know, no one ever sued those old Western towns over their prohibition on carrying firearms. If lawsuits such as that never happened, then there's no court precedent to base an anti-argument on.

Also, since those prohibitions happened long after the constitution was originally ratified, originalists arguments do not seem to apply.

I mostly don't see this as something to worry about. But you never know, there could be case law out there that might trip us up.

Also, was there ever a broad prohibition on carrying guns in town in the old west, or was that aspect of the law simply reserved for drunken, hell-raising cowboys fresh off the trail? I mean, if I was a solid citizen of Dodge City (say, a Banker or a Lawyer), would I be allowed to carry even if the drunken cowboys could not?

In many cities there were prohibitions on the possession of firearms. There were no exceptions. I am sure there were 'gentleman's agreements" in place but prohibiting the carrying of firearms by anyone but peace officers was often the norm.

E Pluribus Unum
04-20-2009, 4:13 PM
Is it true that in some towns of the old west, individuals were prohibited from carrying arms? Open, or concealed? Can you cite any specific instances
and or documentation*? That being said... just because some local judge Bean
tried to prohibit carry, does not make it right,legal, or in line with our rights.
So might I suggest, that instead of "playing devils advocate" for the ghosts of the past, instead you (and we) focus on the current wave of progress
encompassing a return to a proper understading of individual rights doctrine
being recognized to apply, as it rightly should, to the 2A.

*other than Hollywood westerns and gooey liberal folklore.

Do a google search... I found this:



Ordinance No.9:
"To Provide against Carrying of Deadly Weapons" (effective April 19, 1881).

Section 1. "It is hereby declared to be unlawful for any person to carry deadly weapons, concealed or otherwise [except the same be carried openly in sight, and in the hand] within the limits of the City of Tombstone.

Section 2: This prohibition does not extend to persons immediately leaving or entering the city, who, with good faith, and within reasonable time are proceeding to deposit, or take from the place of deposit such deadly weapon.

Section 3: All fire-arms of every description, and bowie knives and dirks, are included within the prohibition of this ordinance."

stormy_clothing
04-20-2009, 4:16 PM
this whole thing is fuxored, so you build guns that wont work with out finger print ID

oh snap then the sun decides it's time for a good old mega sunspot, worldwide communication failure, power grid failure and the electronics built into these guns render them useless.

except if you know how disable them which of course is only for criminals to do as it will be illegal.

so then what ?

well I think all of these *******s find out were not so different from butchers in darfur that were all still human and that control as it was famously put is an illusion I guess.

it's particularly unsettling knowing that if the big one ever hits cali I'll be on my own as per my local fuzz telling me they will be deployed to major metropolitan centers.

E Pluribus Unum
04-20-2009, 4:30 PM
this whole thing is fuxored, so you build guns that wont work with out finger print ID

oh snap then the sun decides it's time for a good old mega sunspot, worldwide communication failure, power grid failure and the electronics built into these guns render them useless.

except if you know how disable them which of course is only for criminals to do as it will be illegal.

so then what ?

well I think all of these *******s find out were not so different from butchers in darfur that were all still human and that control as it was famously put is an illusion I guess.

it's particularly unsettling knowing that if the big one ever hits cali I'll be on my own as per my local fuzz telling me they will be deployed to major metropolitan centers.

Are you off your meds? That post seems to be terribly off topic.

Rivers
04-20-2009, 4:31 PM
It never seems to get mentioned that the "legal" reason for the OK Corral shootout was the Earps intending to prevent the cowboys / Clantons from carrying their firearms into town. That's not to say the shootout wouldn't have happened there, or someplace else, eventually. So legally, the Earps were trying to enforce what would largely be considered an unconstitutional law today, and maybe even then had the courts heard the case.

Tallship
04-20-2009, 4:35 PM
EPU neglected to mention that the laws he cited were the ones in effect in Tombstone, AZ when the Earp brothers attempted to disarm the Clantons at the OK Corral.

bulgron
04-20-2009, 4:36 PM
But the Tombstone laws were never challenged in court, were they? People settled these things differently back in the day.

Again, just because they did unconstitutional things in the old west, that doesn't mean that unconstitutional things can be done today.

E Pluribus Unum
04-20-2009, 4:40 PM
EPU neglected to mention that the laws he cited were the ones in effect in Tombstone, AZ when the Earp brothers attempted to disarm the Clantons at the OK Corral.

How did I neglect to mention that?

When I cite California Vehicle Code section 22350, do I neglect to mention all of the users that have received speeding tickets?

Yes, the Earps were enforcing that law during the OK corral incident. What does that have to do with it? The law in Tombstone was not unlike most of the old west towns. The reason that one was so accessible is because of the fame behind it, but most cities had these ordinances. I did not mention the Earps because it was not relevant to the conversation.

E Pluribus Unum
04-20-2009, 4:43 PM
But the Tombstone laws were never challenged in court, were they? People settled these things differently back in the day.

Again, just because they did unconstitutional things in the old west, that doesn't mean that unconstitutional things can be done today.

The problem is that in the Old West, they DID have courts. Those records are not often easliy found and published on the Internet. I cannot imagine that in the 80 year history of the old west, some aspiring defense attorney NEVER raised a second amendment issue in his arguments. If he did, then there WAS a court ruling on the matter. If that ruling was not appealed then it is binding law in that particular jurisdiction. If there is a significant history of this, then it sets a president that even in our history, guns were prohibited in the city limits and that could be a problem.

ad6mj
04-20-2009, 4:43 PM
Yes, the Earps were enforcing that law during the OK corral incident. What does that have to do with it? The law in Tombstone was not unlike most of the old west towns. The reason that one was so accessible is because of the fame behind it, but most cities had these ordinances. I did not mention the Earps because it was not relevant to the conversation.

Wasn't the Tombstone law eventually repealed because it violated the Arizona State Constitution?

E Pluribus Unum
04-20-2009, 4:49 PM
Wasn't the Tombstone law eventually repealed because it violated the Arizona State Constitution?

Most of the Old West ordinances prohibiting firearms in the city limits have been repealed. That doesn't really change anything because they voluntarily chose to repeal the law.

We have to fight the idea that city ordinances banning firearms were the norm in our HISTORY, not our present.

The path to incorporation was lead through our past. If we acknowledge that the second amendment is afforded to us because of our History, then do we not also need to acknowledge the limitations we placed on it in our history? The plain and simple fact is that during the time span the Nordyke case talks about our "rich firearm history" we were not allowed to carry them in the city limits. That has to be something the Anti's are looking at.