Founding Fathers & NRA Would Have a Great Gun Control Debate
gvw_the_conversation
By The Conversation
Published 7 years ago on
February 21, 2018

Share

The Second Amendment is one of the most frequently cited provisions in the American Constitution, but also one of the most poorly understood.
The 27 words that constitute the Second Amendment seem to baffle modern Americans on both the left and right.


Opinion
Saul Cornell
Ironically, those on both ends of our contemporary political spectrum cast the Second Amendment as a barrier to robust gun regulation. Gun rights supporters – mostly, but not exclusively, on the right – seem to believe that the Second Amendment prohibits many forms of gun regulation. On the left, frustration with the lack of progress on modern gun control leads to periodic calls for the amendment’s repeal.
Both of these beliefs ignore an irrefutable historical truth. The framers and adopters of the Second Amendment were generally ardent supporters of the idea of well-regulated liberty. Without strong governments and effective laws, they believed, liberty inevitably degenerated into licentiousness and eventually anarchy. Diligent students of history, particularly Roman history, the Federalists who wrote the Constitution realized that tyranny more often resulted from anarchy, not strong government.
I have been researching and writing about the history of gun regulation and the Second Amendment for the past two decades. When I began this research, most people assumed that regulation was a relatively recent phenomenon, something associated with the rise of big government in the modern era. Actually, while the founding generation certainly esteemed the idea of an armed population, they were also ardent supporters of gun regulations.
Consider these five categories of gun laws that the Founders endorsed.

No. 1: Registration

Today American gun rights advocates typically oppose any form of registration – even though such schemes are common in every other industrial democracy – and typically argue that registration violates the Second Amendment. This claim is also hard to square with the history of the nation’s founding. All of the colonies – apart from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, the one colony in which religious pacifists blocked the creation of a militia – enrolled local citizens, white men between the ages of 16-60 in state-regulated militias. The colonies and then the newly independent states kept track of these privately owned weapons required for militia service. Men could be fined if they reported to a muster without a well-maintained weapon in working condition.

No. 2: Public carry

The modern gun rights movement has aggressively pursued the goal of expanding the right to carry firearms in public.
The American colonies inherited a variety of restrictions that evolved under English Common Law. In 18th-century England, armed travel was limited to a few well-defined occasions such as assisting justices of the peace and constables. Members of the upper classes also had a limited exception to travel with arms. Concealable weapons such as handguns were subject to even more stringent restrictions. The city of London banned public carry of these weapons entirely.
The American Revolution did not sweep away English common law. In fact, most colonies adopted common law as it had been interpreted in the colonies prior to independence, including the ban on traveling armed in populated areas. Thus, there was no general right of armed travel when the Second Amendment was adopted, and certainly no right to travel with concealed weapons. Such a right first emerged in the United States in the slave South decades after the Second Amendment was adopted. The market revolution of the early 19th century made cheap and reliable hand guns readily available. Southern murder rates soared as a result.
In other parts of the nation, the traditional English restrictions on traveling armed persisted with one important change. American law recognized an exception to this prohibition for individuals who had a good cause to fear an imminent threat. Nonetheless, by the end of the century, prohibiting public carry was the legal norm, not the exception.

It was only after the Civil War that a more aggressive stance on the right to self-defense outside of the home emerged.

No. 3: Stand-Your-Ground laws

Under traditional English common law, one had a duty to retreat, not stand your ground. Deadly force was justified only if no other alternative was possible. One had to retreat, until retreat was no longer possible, before killing an aggressor.
The use of deadly force was justified only in the home, where retreat was not required under the so-called castle doctrine, or the idea that “a man’s home is his castle.” The emergence of a more aggressive view of the right of self-defense in public, standing your ground, emerged slowly in the decades after the Civil War.

No. 4: Safe Storage Laws

Although some gun rights advocates attempt to demonize government power, it is important to recognize that one of the most important rights citizens enjoy is the freedom to elect representatives who can enact laws to promote health and public safety. This is the foundation for the idea of ordered liberty. The regulation of gun powder and firearms arises from an exercise of this basic liberty.
In 1786, Boston acted on this legal principle, prohibiting the storage of a loaded firearm in any domestic dwelling in the city. Guns had to be kept unloaded, a practice that made sense since the black powder used in firearms in this period was corrosive. Loaded guns also posed a particular hazard in cases of fire because they might discharge and injure innocent bystanders and those fighting fires.

No. 5: Loyalty Oaths

One of the most common claims one hears in the modern Second Amendment debate is the assertion that the Founders included this provision in the Constitution to make possible a right of revolution. But this claim, too, rests on a serious misunderstanding of the role the right to bear arms played in American constitutional theory.


The Constitution defines taking up arms against the government as treason.
In fact, the Founders engaged in large-scale disarmament of the civilian population during the American Revolution. The right to bear arms was conditional on swearing a loyalty oath to the government. Individuals who refused to swear such an oath were disarmed.
The notion that the Second Amendment was understood to protect a right to take up arms against the government is absurd. Indeed, the Constitution itself defines such an act as treason.
The ConversationGun regulation and gun ownership have always existed side by side in American history. The Second Amendment poses no obstacle to enacting sensible gun laws. The failure to do so is not the Constitution’s fault; it is ours.
Saul Cornell, Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History, Fordham University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

DON'T MISS

23 for ’23: A Year in Photos

DON'T MISS

See How this Fresno roastery sends aid to Northern Thailand.

DON'T MISS

District Says Fresno Teachers Contract Proposal Would Bankrupt Budget Reserves by Year 3

DON'T MISS

Trump Vows to Ban Gaza Refugees, Expand Muslim Travel Ban If He Wins

DON'T MISS

The Supreme Court Orders Makers of Gun Parts to Comply with Rules on Ghost Guns

DON'T MISS

George W. Bush for Speaker? A Democratic Lawmaker Thinks It’s Possible

DON'T MISS

Former Navy IT Manager Gets Five Years for Hacking, ID Theft

DON'T MISS

Gunman Kills Two Swedes in Brussels, Prompting Terror Alert and Halt of Belgium-Sweden Soccer Match

DON'T MISS

Zakaria: The Best Response to Hamas Would Be to Keep the Saudi Deal Alive

DON'T MISS

Groundbreaking Human Brain Atlas Offers New Hope for Treating Neurological Disorders

UP NEXT

What Does Destroying Gaza Solve?

UP NEXT

How Liberal California Compares to Florida, Texas on Social Media Regulation

UP NEXT

California’s Widening Housing Gap Defies State Efforts to Jump-Start Construction

UP NEXT

Both Israelis and Palestinians Are Victims of Israel’s Apartheid System  

UP NEXT

Both Israelis and Palestinians Are Victims of Israel’s Apartheid System  

UP NEXT

Revisiting Israel’s Alleged Use of White Phosphorus Amid Renewed Conflict

UP NEXT

Hamas’s Unexpected Attack Forces Israel to Rethink Its Palestinian Strategy

UP NEXT

CA’s Safety-Net Hospitals Can’t Afford $25 an Hour Minimum Wage

UP NEXT

Newsom Signs Bill That May Resurrect Pledge on Single-Payer Health Care

UP NEXT

Economic Uncertainty Prompts More Newsom Vetoes as California Tax Deadline Nears

You May like

Trump Vows to Ban Gaza Refugees, Expand Muslim Travel Ban If He Wins

1 year ago

The Supreme Court Orders Makers of Gun Parts to Comply with Rules on Ghost Guns

1 year ago

George W. Bush for Speaker? A Democratic Lawmaker Thinks It’s Possible

1 year ago

Former Navy IT Manager Gets Five Years for Hacking, ID Theft

1 year ago

Gunman Kills Two Swedes in Brussels, Prompting Terror Alert and Halt of Belgium-Sweden Soccer Match

1 year ago

Zakaria: The Best Response to Hamas Would Be to Keep the Saudi Deal Alive

1 year ago

Groundbreaking Human Brain Atlas Offers New Hope for Treating Neurological Disorders

1 year ago

Newsom Signs Law to Slowly Raise Healthcare Minimum Wage to $25

1 year ago

Former Fresno CC Coach Ed Madec Arrested for Allegedly Threatening to Kill Chancellor

1 year ago

Jim Jordan’s Rapid Rise Cheered by Trump and Far Right. Could It Make Him Speaker?

1 year ago

HOT OFF THE PRESS

23 for ’23: A Year in Photos

1 year ago

1 year ago

Trump Vows to Ban Gaza Refugees, Expand Muslim Travel Ban If He Wins