[Abatis]

That seems odd, since it would mean that individual slaves would have a right to own a gun.

Were slaves considered to be any part of "the people"? Dred Scott was the law of the land and would not be overturned until 1868. Once the 14thA made Blacks citizens, there was no question that they were part of "the people" but the enforcement of the 2ndA was frustrated (until 2010, see McDonald v Chicago)

The southern states did capitalize on a quirk in federal law . . . The 2ndA could not be used to protect any citizen's right to arms (Black or White) from state laws but federal militia law was applicable on the states and it forbade Blacks from enrolling. The racist southern states just re-wrote their gun laws to say their state constitution only secured a right to arms for militia members thus the southern states could continue forcibly disarming Blacks.

That racist practice was squashed over the years but it was not dead . . .

That is the origin of your "collective right" theory, it was resurrected in the LOWER federal courts in 1942 and used to deny the 2ndA right to all US citizens.

Congratulations on embracing your racist roots!

Since that was not the case, we must assume that the second amendment was written with the idea that gun rights were either collective, or for only some individuals; i.e. white male landowners.

Who is "we"?

You are free to feel that way; you have proven you no clue what you are talking about, so no doubt, you will continue in your ignorance without any regard for what I post.

Carry on!

[Pants-of-dog]

The most important thing for us people today to agree on is that the people who wrote the 2ndA did not believe they were making positive law.

I am not sure that the founding fathers even had a concept of negative and positive law.

They did not believe they were making any rules for anyone except the federal government and that was limited to the redundant absurdity of forbidding the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

So the second amendment does not prevent individual states from restricting guns?

[Abatis]

Oh shit. Another sovereign citizen dude.

You would look less dumb if your "replies" had some relationship to the context of what I wrote which was @ingliz post here talking about rights vs privileges . . .

My statement only asked if the rights secured in the 5th Amendment were mere privileges that can be rescinded; specifically, "No person shall be . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; . . . "

Rights can be "legally denied" (ingiz's phrase) but only after due process. What ingiz imagines, a "privilege" can be denied for a myriad of plausible reasons (for the benefit of the government even) that do not meet the due process standard.

Ingiz's statement was wrong, yours is beyond wrong, it is a misrepresentation of what I said and ignores the context of my statement . . .

Stop with the logical fallacies.

[Pants-of-dog]

Were slaves considered to be any part of "the people"? Dred Scott was the law of the land and would not be overturned until 1868. Once the 14thA made Blacks citizens, there was no question that they were part of "the people" but the enforcement of the 2ndA was frustrated (until 2010, see McDonald v Chicago)

So even if we embrace an individual right to own guns, we can rescind said right by simply defining someone as not a person.

The southern states did capitalize on a quirk in federal law . . . The 2ndA could not be used to protect any citizen's right to arms (Black or White) from state laws but federal militia law was applicable on the states and it forbade Blacks from enrolling. The racist southern states just re-wrote their gun laws to say their state constitution only secured a right to arms for militia members thus the southern states could continue forcibly disarming Blacks.

That racist practice was squashed over the years but it was not dead . . .

That is the origin of your "collective right" theory, it was resurrected in the LOWER federal courts in 1942 and used to deny the 2ndA right to all US citizens.

Congratulations on embracing your racist roots!

You seem to be saying that history agrees with the claim that gun rights were a collectivist right denied to black people.l

[Abatis]

I am not sure that the founding fathers even had a concept of negative and positive law.

Are you serious?

So the second amendment does not prevent individual states from restricting guns?

Correct, none of the Bill of Rights were applicable to the states, no rights recognized and secured in the BoR were enforceable against state action.

The 14thA sought to correct that but was frustrated by SCOTUS in 1873 in a case which deactivated the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14thA (The Slaughterhouse Cases).

SCOTUS crafted a work around for that legal travesty in the early 20th Century. The hinky theory employed the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the 14thA to secure substantive rights. That required a painstaking examination of a challenged law as to "due process" or "equal protection" and led to a decides long, piecemeal doctrine called "selective corporation".

The 2ndA / RKBA was not incorporated until 2010.

Here is a list:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

[Abatis]

So even if we embrace an individual right to own guns, we can rescind said right by simply defining someone as not a person.

Kindasorta . . . The federal government has through 18 U.S.C, §922(g)(1-9) made certain conditions a justification to establish certain people as "prohibited persons" and that individual's right to acquire, possess and use guns and ammo is disabled after due process.

So yes, technically those individuals who meet §922(g) conditions are legally 'non-persons' as gun rights go, but it isn't referred to as such, the preferred and accepted term is "prohibited person". Technically they are still legal persons as far as other rights go, rights that are recognized to remain in their possession.

You can't just declare wide swaths of people "prohibited persons" and say they have no right to arms . . . It is a condition only applied to individuals after due process for actual crimes committed or other excluding conditions being met (e.g., dishonorable discharge, revoking citizenship).

You seem to be saying that history agrees with the claim that gun rights were a collectivist right denied to black people.l

As slaves without a doubt, later as citizens (post 1868) certain legal tricks and miscarriages withheld the RKBA from ALL citizens as far as state infringements go (until 2010).

As I said, the state laws that facilitated brutal laws forbidding arms to Freemen and then Black citizens were not because the 2ndA was deficient, it was because the federal militia law was so emphatic barring Blacks from militia service and the states invented a way to declare their own constitution's right to arms was only recognized for militia members (of course that was never enforced on any White person).

Understand, the 2nd Amendment was not a legal shield that any citizen, White or Black could claim to repel state gun laws, whether they were in 1880 Tennessee or 2009 Illinois or 2021 New York -- until SCOTUS finally fully enforced the 14thA in NYSRPA v Bruen.

.

[Pants-of-dog]

Are you serious?

Yes.

The concept of negative and positive freedoms seems to be a modern invention.

Correct, none of the Bill of Rights were applicable to the states, no rights recognized and secured in the BoR were enforceable against state action.

The 14thA sought to correct that but was frustrated by SCOTUS in 1873 in a case which deactivated the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14thA (The Slaughterhouse Cases).

SCOTUS crafted a work around for that legal travesty in the early 20th Century. The hinky theory employed the "due process" and "equal protection" clauses of the 14thA to secure substantive rights. That required a painstaking examination of a challenged law as to "due process" or "equal protection" and led to a decides long, piecemeal doctrine called "selective corporation".

The 2ndA / RKBA was not incorporated until 2010.

Here is a list:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/incorporation_doctrine

. . . The federal government has through 18 U.S.C, §922(g)(1-9) made certain conditions a justification to establish certain people as "prohibited persons" and that individual's right to acquire, possess and use guns and ammo is disabled after due process.

So yes, technically those individuals who meet §922(g) conditions are legally 'non-persons' as gun rights go, but it isn't referred to as such, the preferred and accepted term is "prohibited person". Technically they are still legal persons as far as other rights go, rights that are recognized to remain in their possession.

You can't just declare wide swaths of people "prohibited persons" and say they have no right to arms . . . It is a condition only applied to individuals after due process for actual crimes committed or other excluding conditions being met (e.g., dishonorable discharge, revoking citizenship).

You just posted a tom of history showing how black people were excluded from gun rights.

So it seems that people can “declare wide swaths of people "prohibited persons" and say they have no right to arms”.

As slaves without a doubt, later as citizens (post 1868) certain legal tricks and miscarriages withheld the RKBA from ALL citizens as far as state infringements go (until 2010).

As I said, the state laws that facilitated brutal laws forbidding arms to Freemen and then Black citizens were not because the 2ndA was deficient, it was because the federal militia law was so emphatic barring Blacks from militia service and the states invented a way to declare their own constitution's right to arms was only recognized for militia members (of course that was never enforced on any White person).

Understand, the 2nd Amendment was not a legal shield that any citizen, White or Black could claim to repel state gun laws, whether they were in 1880 Tennessee or 2009 Illinois or 2021 New York -- until SCOTUS finally fully enforced the 14thA in NYSRPA v Bruen.

.

So we see that the founding fathers were, minimally, supportive of states’ rights to withhold gun rights from black people, and wrote the second amendment so that these states could use state militias to put down slave rebellions.

[Drlee]

And nowhere in the constitution does it state that the government does not have the right to restrict the type of weapon owned. Theoretically we (the federal government) could restrict all but single shot rifles without a permit. None of this right limits the state's right to enforce pretty much whatever law they would like.

Tell me Sport. Why do you need arms to at your soul discretion decide to kill people with differing political opinions? Why do you think that the founders felt that an individual should be allowed, at his soul discretion, to decide that killing the soldiers of the US government is an acceptable expression of his political will and thereby offered this sacred right to keep a weapon?

Because if you do not believe that you have the right to kill your political rival at your soul discretion, you are not speaking of an individual second amendment right but rather one that would be only undertaken under the constitution of the individual state in which you reside. In other words Einstein, a militia action controlled by the governor. And that is NOT an individual right.

I take comfort, as an old soldier, to realize that the fantasy lives of these heavily armed fools will dissolve at the first contact with disciplined soldiers. And that the military, as witnessed by the way it rebuffed Trump, would certainly not overthrow the government over abortion, or gun ownership, or gay marriage, or other such all time greatest who gives a shits that so energize the less intelligent drones on the right.

I am a lifelong conservative. Probably been a voting one since before @Abatis was born. Never in the past had the conservative movement been so unpatriotic. So willing to destroy the country and social order over petty political differences. A coalition of unintelligent, Putin-loving incels obsessed with fantasies of raping the girl down the block at gun point.

[ingliz]

@Abatis

due process

So you believe you have legal rights? But legal rights are flimsy things. Morally relative, as you have pointed out. Subject to legal challenge and liable to be given or taken away on a whim by a packed court.

The right to due process, for example, is a privilege.

ARTICLE I
Section 9: Powers Denied Congress

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

[ingliz]

A legal right defined:

"a right is any action of a person which law permits."

1. The judicial is one of the three branches of government.

2. Federal judges are political appointments.

3. Politicians have agenda and expect their appointees to further it.

4. Law is not apolitical.

It follows that a legal right is any action that the government permits: a privilege, in other words.

[late]

A legal right defined:

"a right is any action of a person which law permits."

1. The judicial is one of the three branches of government.

2. Federal judges are political appointments.

3. Politicians have agenda and expect their appointees to further it.

4. Law is not apolitical.

It follows that a legal right is any action that the government permits: a privilege, in other words.

That's a classic mistake, the original wording is that the letter of the law cannot be used to defeat the spirit of the law.

In this case, you're trying to defeat the whole idea of justice..

[ingliz]

justice

Are you getting all philosophical now?

According to recent polling, 70% of Americans think the US justice system is broken.

"A raging dumpster fire of injustice."

"Justice is not blind, it sees green."

"The American justice system is a fucking joke."

etc., etc.

[late]

Are you getting all philosophical now?

The legal system needs reform from the street cop all the way up to the Supreme Court, but if you kill Rule of Law, you've killed over 2 centuries of work to build "a more perfect Union."

Changing the bathwater is a good idea, but most don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

They also don't want a dictator, and yes, it's connected.