2a legal history flowchart/chronology

[gcrtkd]

eta: Updates & .jpg version added in later post(s)...


Friends-

With all of the legal cases going on touching upon the 2A these days (as well as the oft-misunderstood history of the amendment, it's meaning, and related court decisions), I thought it would help to pull everything together into an easy to follow chronological flowchart diagram with all of the major statutory law and case law decisions. Presumably a similar flowchart could be created for each of the amendments held to be incorporated against the states. I'll try to upload what I've got here as both a .pdf and a .doc so others can edit and repost. I don't have the focus right now to put in the major takeaway from Cruikshank, so maybe someone else can if they like. I also left out things like Jim Crow laws and common misconceptions such as the definition of militia & ‘well regulated’. Please let me know if I've missed any major laws or cases and make additions as you see fit.

One of the things that I predict that this will be useful for is if I ever try to explain to someone again how we ended up in this mess and why we are clawing our way out of a real deep hole with the 2A.

Oh... looking at this, I see that I forgot to put the 94 - 04 AWB. I'll have to think if that should go in there...

-gcrtkd

[GrizzlyGuy]

That's very cool, nice job!

I'd maybe include Robertson v. Baldwin (1897). The case originated in Northern California (Alameda) and could be relevant if SCOTUS gets into the "reasonableness" of firearms laws post-incorporation:

"But we are also of opinion that...the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons..."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=165&invol=275

[CHS]

only 800 years later......

[gcrtkd]

updated 2A legal flowchart

made a couple of edits and I'm going to try to post a .jpg image of it in case people aren't motivated to DL the .pdf or .doc.

As always, open to constructive criticism.

-gcrtkd

[GuyW]

There's a bunch of SCOTUS cases with pro-RKBA commentary pre-Heller....your outline makes it look like there was NO dispute over the "collective" lie...
.

[gcrtkd]

There's a bunch of SCOTUS cases with pro-RKBA commentary pre-Heller....your outline makes it look like there was NO dispute over the "collective" lie...
.

Not out of malice on my part, but purely out of ignorance (again, on my part). That is why I put it out to the greater group to make edits and comments. I only knows what I knows and I don't knows what I don't knows...

-gcrtkd

[bomb_on_bus]

definitely good post my man!

[Librarian]

Depending on just how enthused you want to be, you should read the amicus briefs filed for Heller.

See http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

[gcrtkd]

Depending on just how enthused you want to be, you should read the amicus briefs filed for Heller.

See http://dcguncase.com/blog/case-filings/

Oh, I'm enthused, baby! I did read (at least some) of the amicus briefs for Heller, but retention was not 100% - I could feel multivariable calculus and complex analysis leaking out of my ears as I was reading. I was really just trying to get something started here for those of us who are more visually-oriented and may have trouble maintaining a relatively linear argument and not falling off the rails. I would really like to see others contribute and put in other key points that I have missed (like Blackstone). I don't know if RedHorse still has the software that he used to make the AW flow chart, but I'm just working in M$ Word, so things could definitely be done more professionally. And I'm fine admitting that.

-gracias
-gcrtkd

[Mikeb]

can anyone point me to a good outline on Cruckshank?
thanks
Mike

[Mikeb]

OK I found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Man that is a funny bit of business. The federal gov can't take away an individual's rights but the States can.
I don't like that
Mike

[obeygiant]

Nicely done.

[obeygiant]

Oh, I'm enthused, baby! I did read (at least some) of the amicus briefs for Heller, but retention was not 100% - I could feel multivariable calculus and complex analysis leaking out of my ears as I was reading. I was really just trying to get something started here for those of us who are more visually-oriented and may have trouble maintaining a relatively linear argument and not falling off the rails. I would really like to see others contribute and put in other key points that I have missed (like Blackstone). I don't know if RedHorse still has the software that he used to make the AW flow chart, but I'm just working in M$ Word, so things could definitely be done more professionally. And I'm fine admitting that.

-gracias
-gcrtkd

You've done a great job with MSWord but I'd be happy to help when you need it.

[dantodd]

OK I found

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

Man that is a funny bit of business. The federal gov can't take away an individual's rights but the States can.
I don't like that
Mike

Well, it was that way from "the beginning" until the 14th amendment was passed and (as you've seen) even that didn't solve the problem immediately.

[gcrtkd]

You've done a great job with MSWord but I'd be happy to help when you need it.

Thanks, OG. What do you have in mind? I suppose I could go back and read the Heller amicus briefs... or I could sit here and watch MythBusters. Decisions, decisions...

Please, feel free to add, modify delete as you see fit. If you have some more suitable format(ing or) software, please have at. BTW, is it Slaughterhouse or Slaughter-House? Hmmm...

I wonder if there's a similar diagram that can be written for the I-A, the IV-A, etc.. Could be a teaching tool to distribute to law professors to use to teach students. Takeaway? The II-A is just like (and important as) the other amendments in the BOR... Though it may have been treated like the redheaded stepchild of the Constitution, it has had to claw its way out of a hole created by twisted logic, intellectual dishonesty, and decisions based upon emotion rather than facts.

-gcrtkd