Skip to main content

Recent Posts

1
it restricts to a specific group and the little words "as allowed by law" makes it subject to further regulation [...] In no way does it look like an inalienable (individual) human right.
Right, that is the key American innovation, at least compared to English common law.[1] These rules now apply to all free men (certainly not slaves, probably not women either) without discrimination on the basis of religion.

And note that it says "have arms", not "bear arms" which could be a idiomatic expression.
Note that the phrase "bear arms" is used just a few sentences down from "have arms" in this very similar citation.

Quote from: p. 10-11 from the Cato Institute brief
The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defence, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right , but as a duty ; for all the subjects of the realm, who are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times, to assist the sheriff, and other civil magistrates, in the execution of the laws and the preservation of the public peace. And that this right, which every Protestant most unquestionably possesses individually , may , and in many cases must , be exercised collectively , is likewise a point I conceive to be most clearly established .

In context, it does seem abundantly clear that "have arms" relates to the possession of arms and "bear arms" to something more organized, like a militia.

Like Scalia wrote, however, it seems odd to assume that something different than usual was meant just because they phrased it more succinctly (and hence unfortunately less clearly).
In the low countries, where power rested mainly in the hands of cities and citizens rather than those of lords and bishops, well-regulated city militias were seen as crucial to ensuring safety and security. Including from their own supposed lords. See, e.g., http://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_2011_num_89_3_8350

The antisemitic governor of New Amsterdam, Stuyvesant, had to be forced by the Dutch homeland to allow Jews to not only settle in New Amsterdam itself, but to join the New Amsterdam militia. He was similarly forced by the Dutch Republic to allow adherents of other minority religions like Quakers, Lutherans -- the wrong type of Protestants, the right ones are obviously Calvinist -- and Catholics. The United States likes to boast of its religious freedoms. It was our gift. Religious freedoms came from New Netherland. Not New England.
2
The Lounge / Re: True or false?
Last post by Luxor -
False.

You tripped and banged your head on a wall.
3
Quote from: p. 4
The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other
authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right.
I suspect it's the same "law" that is referred to in the article I found.
Quote from: Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense By Saul Cornell
The English Declaration of Rights also asserted: "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." The right was lim­ited to Protestants and the type of arma­ment further restricted by social class. Finally, the right was limited in scope: Parliament retained the power to regu­late or restrict the right as it saw fit to promote public safety and the general welfare of the nation.
Yes, individual insofar as it's apart from "militia", but it restricts to a specific group and the little words "as allowed by law" makes it subject to further regulation (in continental law, a phrase like this would mean that this section would not even take effect unless a specific law about it is passed). And note that it says "have arms", not "bear arms" which could be a idiomatic expression.[1] In no way does it look like an inalienable (individual) human right.
Idioms can be crucial. For example in Estonian, when you say "at arms" in a certain (irregularly inflected) way and in plural, it most definitely means *army* or at least a single-minded mob, not several armed men, each with their own goal. Cf. English men-at-arms.
4
Legally, "seems to" doesn't cut it, because a bunch of other meanings may seem to be found in the same words in different contexts. What matters is to get as indisputably close to the primary current meaning as possible. So, it either *primarily* refers to an individual's right or *alternatively*. The difference between the two is crucial, as is also the context by which it can be determined whether the primary or the alternative meaning is the current one.
Of course. I'm merely indicating that I'm less informed about English common law than required to make a proper judgment. But it's my impression that in English common law it did indeed refer *primarily* to an individual's right, by extension of which the same would apply to American law. In Scalia's words (which, to my best current judgment, are correct):[1]
Quote
The historical narrative that petitioners must endorse would thus treat the Federal Second Amendment as an odd outlier, protecting a right unknown in state constitutions or at English common law, based on little more than an overreading of the prefatory clause.
An excellent overview can be found in this brief of the Cato Institute. It's without a doubt the best overview I've come across yet.
Quote from: p. 2
Indeed, "[t]he language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted." Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87, 108-09 (1925).
Quote from: p. 4
The English right to arms emerged in 1689, and in the century thereafter courts, Blackstone, and other
authorities recognized it. They recognized a personal, individual right.

Also of interest is the mention of an armed mob (that which some would like to call a militia) in English common law.
Quote from: p. 19
An armed mob would be worse, and so an armed group posed a particular risk of causing terror. The commission of justices of the peace, from 1590, charged them based on Northampton to inquire into persons who went or rode "in companies, with armed force against the peace." Butt v. Conant, 129 Eng. Rep. 834, 849 (C.P. 1820).

After 1689, the law wrestled with reconciling this concern and the arms right. Hawkins concluded that "persons of quality" not only could wear common weapons but also could "hav[e] their usual number of attendants with them, for their ornament or defence, in such places, and upon such occasions, in which it is the common fashion to make use of them." Hawkins, ch. 63, § 9. Yet "persons riding together on the road with unusual weapons, or otherwise assembling together in such a manner as is apt to raise a terror in the people," were guilty of unlawful assembly. Id., ch. 65, § 4.
5
I have to side with Scalia on this one. American law is a direct descendant of English common law, where the right to bear arms seems to refer to an individual's right.
Legally, "seems to" doesn't cut it, because a bunch of other meanings may seem to be found in the same words in different contexts. What matters is to get as indisputably close to the primary current meaning as possible. So, it either *primarily* refers to an individual's right or *alternatively*. The difference between the two is crucial, as is also the context by which it can be determined whether the primary or the alternative meaning is the current one.

The brief referred to in the opinion seems more colored by political opinion than serious analysis. They sweep contradicting examples under the rug as "unidiomatic" (p.26) as well as "awkward and idiosyncratic" (p. 27). That's begging the question. The phrase "bear arms" can only refer to serving in an armymilitia, therefore when you use it to refer to individuals it's unidiomatic? Spare me. That's what you're trying to prove, so you can't use it as an argument.
True, it's a very bad argument - if this sweeping under the rug were the only argument. But the first and main argument is pointing out the fact that the text says "militia", so that's what it's all about. How does Scalia &Co. get around this? Might I suggest that their minds could be coloured more by political opinion than serious argument?

Meanwhile, I found this little article.
Quote from: Natural Rights, Common Law, and the English Right of Self-Defense By Saul Cornell
In the course of the debates in the House and Senate, Madi­son's original provision [of BoR a.k.a. the first constitutional amendments] was edited and rearranged. A clause dealing with those religiously scrupulous of bearing arms was dropped when an Anti-Federalist congressman expressed alarm that the new federal government might use this clause as pretext for declaring who was scrupulous and use this power to disarm the state militias. Congress also dropped references to the militia as composed of the body of the people and efforts to limit the role of the mili­tia to common defense.
If this is true and the 2nd amendment that gringos ended up with is a radical shortening from a longer text that dealt with the "militia" concept more extensively, even to the point of providing against those who refuse to bear arms, all further debate about the original intent is futile.
6
Otter Browser Forum / Re: (Pre) RC 1 release (01.10.2017)
Last post by kwaku1 -
Bardzo, bardzo serdecznie dziękuję. :) Wielce, uniżenie i gorąco. ;) RC1 realse, to już jest Opera Presto. :) Używam jej na codzień, ale coraz bardziej wykłada się w codziennym użytkowaniu.

RC1 już jest w stanie Operę Presto zastąpić. Wielkie dzięki jeszcze raz. :) Mam nadzieję, że utrzymasz wersję dla użytkowników Windowsa XP. Jeszcze nas paru pozostało. ;)

Teraz pomarudzę. ;) Mnie osobiście brakuje już tylko funkcji "dopasuj do szerokości". Ale rozumiem, że to nie jest na obecną chwilę najważniejsza rzecz. Zresztą silnik inny, więc nie wiadomo, ile Twojej pracy i czasu to by kosztowało.

Pozdrawiam bardzo serdecznie. :)

7
The Lounge / Re: True or false?
Last post by Frenzie -
True. Delicious.

You're updating your wireless AP today.
8
The Lounge / Re: True or false?
Last post by Luxor -
False. Not here it's not.  :P

Your hands smell of garlic every time you cook with it.
9
The Lounge / Re: True or false?
Last post by Frenzie -
True.

You're shocked that it's already after 4 PM.
10
Incidentally, I was curious what American Civilization: An Introduction (5th edition) by David Mauk and John Oakland had to say about this subject. I read the whole book back in 2010 or so. On p. 218-219:

Quote
Does this mean that all American may own guns, or only those who serve in a militia? Since the 1930s, nine federal appeals courts have supported the latter 'collectivist' position and rejected the former. Some states, on the other hand, have allowed individual gun ownership.

The Supreme Court had never definitively interpreted the Second Amendment. However, in 2007[...] (District of Columbia v. Heller). [...]

On June 26, 2008 the US Supreme Court ruled by a majority of 5-4 that a ban on the private possession of handguns in Washinton DC was unconstitutional. It ruled that the constitution 'protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home'. The ruling enshrines for the first time the individual right to own guns and arguably limits efforts to reduce their role in American life. [...] 'It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for wahtever purpose.' It was felt that the Constitution gives authorities the tools to combat gun abuse, including measures regulating handguns. The central issue therefore is how far the right to possess guns can be regulated.

Some relevant links:
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

Scalia addresses my hypothesis as follows:
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state." [Footnote 8] It is clear from those formulations that "bear arms" did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit.

The dissenting opinion by Stevens:
The term "bear arms" is a familiar idiom; when used unadorned by any additional words, its meaning is "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 Oxford English Dictionary 634 (2d ed. 1989). It is derived from the Latin arma ferre, which, translated literally, means "to bear [ferre] war equipment [arma]." Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 19. One 18th-century dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence," 1 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (1755), and another contemporaneous source explained that "[\b]y arms, we understand those instruments of offence generally made use of in war; such as firearms, swords, & c. By weapons, we more particularly mean instruments of other kinds (exclusive of fire-arms), made use of as offensive, on special occasions." 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794).[Footnote 8] Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase "bear arms" to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as "for the defense of themselves," as was done in the Pennsylvania and Vermont Declarations of Rights. The unmodified use of "bear arms," by contrast, refers most naturally to a military purpose, as evidenced by its use in literally dozens of contemporary texts.[Footnote 9] The absence of any reference to civilian uses of weapons tailors the text of the Amendment to the purpose identified in its preamble.[Footnote 10] But when discussing these words, the Court simply ignores the preamble.

In other words, as expected the results of my breakfast experiment are in already, and they can be reviewed in footnote 9.

Scalia has more to say about that:
Quote
Justice Stevens contends, post, at 15, that since we assert that adding "against" to "bear arms" gives it a military meaning we must concede that adding a purposive qualifying phrase to "bear arms" can alter its meaning. But the difference is that we do not maintain that "against" alters the meaning of "bear arms" but merely that it clarifies which of various meanings (one of which is military) is intended. Justice Stevens, however, argues that "[t]he term 'bear arms' is a familiar idiom; when used unadorned by any additional words, its meaning is 'to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight.' " Post, at 11. He therefore must establish that adding a contradictory purposive phrase can alter a word's meaning.

I have to side with Scalia on this one. American law is a direct descendant of English common law, where the right to bear arms seems to refer to an individual's right. The brief referred to in the opinion seems more colored by political opinion than serious analysis. They sweep contradicting examples under the rug as "unidiomatic" (p.26) as well as "awkward and idiosyncratic" (p. 27). That's begging the question. The phrase "bear arms" can only refer to serving in an armymilitia, therefore when you use it to refer to individuals it's unidiomatic? Spare me. That's what you're trying to prove, so you can't use it as an argument.