TriggerFinger


BlogRoll

From the Barrel of a Gun
Lurking Rhythmically
Random Nuclear Strikes
Daily Pundit
Borepatch
Only Guns and Money
Mostly Cajun
Massad Ayoob
The View From North Central Idaho
Armed and Dangerous
Hell in a Handbasket
View From The Porch
Patterico
Guns, Cars, and Tech
Alphecca
Legal Insurrection
Irons in the Fire
Volokh Conspiracy
Snowflakes in Hell
Shot in the Dark
MArooned
Power Line
Michael Bane
Reason
The Smallest Minority
Publicola
Sharp as a Marble
The Silicon Greybeard
3 boxes of BS
Saysuncle
Alphecca
Of Arms and the Law
Bacon, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives
Infodancer
Speculative Fiction
GunBlogBlackList
John Lott
Confiscation

Categories

FeedBoomershoot 2008 

Most Popular

Featured Posts

Buried deep in the comments...


Buried deep in the comments section of the Volokh Conspiracy is this jewel from Clayton Cramer, on what armaments were commonly possessed by the people of the United States at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified:
My new book Armed America (Nelson Current, 2007) answers some of the questions about what arms were in common civilian ownership when the Second Amendment was ratified. I cite ads offering "hand grenadoes" for sale (probably equivalent to a modern pipe bomb in destructiveness), and the 1786 Boston ordinance prohibiting leaving loaded firearms in buildings (as a fire safety measure) that lists not only small arms, but mortars, artillery, and a bunch of other stuff that would qualify as "destructive devices" today. I don't think they included them on the list because they wanted to be complete.

There was privately owned artillery during the Revolutionary period, although I suspect that almost all of it (because of cost and its lack of utility for hunting) was owned by the various militia organizations.
I've long believed the same, but based more on intuition and implication than solid authority.   Clayton's evidence is welcome and will be cited in the future.  (I just need to remember to order a copy of his book...)
If you look at the National Firearms Act hearings before the House Ways & Means Committee, you can see that even proponents of it, such as the A-G and his assistant, admitted that a complete ban on sale or possession of machine guns was beyond the authority of the federal government, because of the Second Amendment. Background checks for weapons seem unobjectionable from a Constitutional standpoint, as long as they have some reasonable relationship to public safety. But that's more a function of the person, than of the weapon.
The other counterintuitive thing that I will note here is that the Constitution probably does not prohibit firearms registration so long as that registration is not used as a tool to aid confiscation.  Many founding-era communities had firearms registration laws for militia purposes. 

In modern times, however, registration lists have been used to support confiscation efforts often enough that this could be convincingly argued as currently prohibited even if originally permitted.

This entry was published 2007-03-17 00:16:19.0 by matthew@triggerfinger.org and last updated 2007-03-17 00:16:19.0. [Tweet]

Recent Entries

Most Popular

Featured Entries

Related Categories

comments powered by Disqus
If you would like to receive new posts by email:

I am not a lawyer, and nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice. this site is run on custom blog software and is being actively developed. Please be forgiving of errors.


This website is an Amazon affiliate and will receive financial compensation for products purchased from Amazon through links on this site.