quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz
No one should be forced to own a gun (or to attend annual rifle training) against one's will.

Seems the founders didn't agree with you.


The second Militia Act, passed May 8, 1792, conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)

"every citizen, ...shall within six months thereafter, provide himself..." with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack.[5]

And according to US code 311 - still in force

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


Lest you think this is an aberration:

Connecticul:
Connecticut's 1650 code contains one of the clearest expressions of the duty to own a gun: “That all persons that are above the age of sixteene yeares, except magistrates and church officers, shall beare arms...; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continuall readines, a good muskitt or other gunn, fitt for service. A less elaborate form of the law appeared in 1636, with reiterations in 1637, 1665, 1673, 1696, and 1741.[

Virginia:

A 1684 statute required free Virginians to “provide and furnish themselves with a sword, musquet and other furniture fitt for a soldier… two pounds of powder, and eight pounds of shott….”[vii] A similar 1705 statute required every foot soldier to arm himself “with a firelock, muskett, or fusee well fixed” and gave him eighteen months to comply with the law before he would subject to fine.[viii] There are minor modifications to the statute in 1738 that still required all members of the militia to appear at musters with the same list of gun choices, but reduced the ammunition requirement to one pound of powder and four pounds of lead balls.[ix] A 1748 revision is also clear that militiamen were obligated to provide themselves with “arms and ammunition.”[x] The 1748 statute, however, did acknowledge that all freemen might not be wealthy enough to arm themselves, and provided for issuance of arms “out of his majesty’s magazine.”[xi] By 1755, all cavalry officers were obligated to provide themselves with “holsters and pistols well fixed….”[xii]


New York:
Every Male within this government from Sixteen to Sixty years of age, or not freed by public Allowance, shall[,] if freeholders[,] at their own, if sons or Servants[,] at their Parents and Masters Charge and Cost, be furnished from time to time and so Continue well furnished with Arms and other Suitable Provition hereafter mentioned: under the penalty of five Shillings for the least default therein[:] Namely a good Serviceable Gun, allowed Sufficient by his Military Officer to be kept in Constant fitness for present Service” along with all the other equipment required in the field

Maryland:
Similar to statutes appearing in other colonies, Maryland’s “An Act for Military Discipline” enacted in February or March of 1638/9 (O.S.) required “that every house keeper or housekeepers within this Province shall have ready continually upon all occasions within his her or their house for him or themselves and for every person within his her or their house able to bear armes[,] one Serviceable fixed gunne of bastard muskett boare…” along with a pound of gunpowder, four pounds of pistol or musket shot, “match for matchlocks and of flints for firelocks….”[xiv] A different form of this law, ordering every member of the militia to “appear and bring with him one good serviceable Gun, fixed, with Six Charges of Powder,” appears in a 1715 Maryland statute book as well.[xv] Cavalrymen were obligated to “find themselves with Swords, Carbines, Pistols, Holsters and Ammunition” with a fine for failure to appear armed at militia muster.[xvi]

Massachusetts
Massachusetts adopted a measure March 22, 1630/1 that required all adult men to be armed.[xxiii] Although this measure is not explicit that the arms were firearms, it is apparent that guns were not in short supply in Massachusetts, because within 15 years, the Colonial government had made the requirement for guns explicit, and had even become quite demanding as to what type of guns were acceptable for militia duty. An order of October 1, 1645 directed that in the future, the only arms that would be allowed “serviceable, in our trained bands… are ether full musket boare, or basterd musket at the least, & that none should be under three foote 9 inches….”[xxiv] Even those exempt from militia duty were not exempt from the requirement to have a gun in their home. A June 18, 1645 order required “all inhabitants” including those exempt from militia duty, “to have armes in their howses fitt for service, with pouder, bullets, match, as other souldiers….”[xxv]
Massachusetts Bay Colony, like many modern governments, expressed its concern about the nexus of guns and children. A May 14, 1645 order directed that “all youth within this jurisdiction, from ten yeares ould to the age of sixteen yeares, shalbe instructed, by some one of the officers of the band, or some other experienced souldier… upon the usuall training dayes, in the exercise of armes, as small guns, halfe pikes, bowes & arrows…..”[xxvi] The duty to be armed meant that even children were required to learn to use a gun

New Haven and Plymouth
New Haven Colony passed such laws in 1639, 1643, 1644, and 1646.[xxvii] Plymouth Colony did the same in 1632, 1636, and 1671 (although the last statute is less clear than the earlier two as to requiring private ownership)

New Hampshire
A statute in New Hampshire’s 1716 compilation ordered “That all Male Persons from Sixteen Years of Age to Sixty, (other than such as are herein after excepted) shall bear Arms … allowing Three Months time to every Son after his coming to Sixteen Years of Age, and every Servant so long, after his time is out, to provide themselves with Arms and Ammunition…. That every Listed Souldier and Housholder, (except Troopers) shall be always provided with a well fix’d, Firelock Musket, of Musket or Bastard-Musket bore,… or other good Fire-Arms, to the satisfaction of the Commission Officers of the Company… on penalty of Six Shillings for want of Such Arms, as is hereby required….” [emphasis in original] Similar requirements were imposed on cavalrymen.


New Jersey
New Jersey’s 1703 militia statute was similar, requiring all men “between the Age of Sixteen and Fifty years” with the exception of ministers, physicians, school masters, “Civil Officers of the Government,” members of the legislature, and slaves, to be members of the militia. “Every one of which is listed shall be sufficiently armed with one good sufficient Musquet or Fusee well fixed, a Sword or [Bayonet], a Cartouch box or Powder-horn, a pound of Powder, and twelve sizeable Bullets, who shall appear in the Field, so armed, twice every year….

Delaware
In 1742, Delaware required, “That every Freeholder and taxable Person residing in this Government (except such as are hereafter excepted) shall, on or before the First Day of March next, provide himself with the following Arms and Ammunition, viz. One well fixed Musket or Firelock, one Cartouch-Box, with Twelve Charges of Gun-Powder and Ball therein, and Three good Flints, to be approved of by the Commanding Officer of the respective Company to which he belongs, and shall be obliged to keep such Arms and Ammunition by him, during the Continuance of this Act....” There was a fine of forty shillings for those who failed to do so.

Rhode Island
There is, however, a 1639 statute that ordered “noe man shall go two miles from the Towne unarmed, eyther with Gunn or Sword; and that none shall come to any public Meeting without his weapon.”[xxxii] While not an explicit order that every man was required to own a gun, widespread gun ownership was clearly assumed. The Rhode Island city of Portsmouth did impose a requirement to own a gun in 1643, and directed militia officers to personally inspect every inhabitant of the town to verify that they had both bullets and powder

South Carolina
South Carolina’s obligation to own a gun is not explicit, but did require “all, and every person and persons now in this Colony” to “appeare in armes ready fitted in their severall Companies….”[xxxiv] “Armes,” of course, might include a sword or other non-firearm weapon, but South Carolina’s 1743 requirement to bring guns to church (to be discussed later), suggests that “armes” meant guns.

North Carolina
North Carolina passed militia laws in or before 1715 and in 1746 that were similar in form. The earlier statute required every member of the militia (every freeman between 16 and 60) to show up for muster “with a good Gun well-fixed Sword & at least Six Charges of Powder & Ball” or pay a fine.[xxxv] The 1746 statute obligated “all the Freemen and Servants... between the Age of Sixteen Years, and Sixty” to enlist in the militia, and further, required all such persons “be well provided with a Gun, fit for Service,… and at least Twelve Charges of Powder and Ball, or Swan Shot, and Six spare Flints.....” Failure to have those when called to militia muster would subject one to a fine of two shillings, eight pence, “for Want of any of the Arms, Accoutrements, or Ammunition....” Interestingly enough, unlike other colonies, the definition of militia member under both statutes did not exclude free blacks.[xxxvi] According to John Hope Franklin, “free Negroes served in the militia of North Carolina with no apparent discrimination against them.

Georgia
Georgia
Georgia’s long and poorly written militia law of 1773 at first appears to provide for the government to arm the militia, since it declares that the governor or military commander may “assemble and call together all male Persons in this Province from the Age of Sixteen Years to Sixty Years… at such times, and arm and array them in such manner as is hereafter expressed….”[xxxviii] But later the statute directs that, “every Person liable to appear and bear arms at any Exercise Muster or Training… Shall constantly keep and bring with them… one Gun or Musket fit for Service[,] one Catridge [sic] Box with at least Nine Catridges filled with Good Gun Powder and Ball that shall fit his Piece[,] a horn or Flask containing at least a Quarter of a Pound of Gun Powder[,] a shot Pouch with half a pound of Bulletts….”


From https://www.saf.org/journal/16/ColonialFirearmRegulation.htm


And since this is often forgotten..
http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm

quote:


KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.

In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition.

The ordinance states the gun law is needed to "protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants."

Then-councilman J.O. Stephenson said after the ordinance was passed, everyone "went crazy."

"People all over the country said there would be shootings in the street and violence in homes," he said. "Of course, that wasn't the case."

In fact, according to Stephenson, it caused the crime rate in the city to plunge.

Kennesaw Historical Society president Robert Jones said following the law's passage, the crime rate dropped 89 percent in the city, compared to the modest 10 percent drop statewide.

"It did drop after it was passed," he said. "After it initially dropped, it has stayed at the same low level for the past 16 years."

Mayor Leonard Church was not in office when the law was passed, but he said he is a staunch supporter of it.

"You can't argue with the fact that Kennesaw has the lowest crime rate of any city our size in the country," said Church, who owns a denture-making company in Kennesaw.

The author of the ordinance, local attorney Fred Bentley Sr., attributes at least some of the decrease in crime to the bill.

"I am definitely in favor of what we did," he said. "It may not be totally responsible for the decrease, [but] it is a part."

Although he is pleased with the outcome, Bentley said he was originally opposed to drafting the law.

"I didn't think it could be written in a constitutional fashion," he said. "Obviously, it was constitutional, because the American Civil Liberties Union challenged it in court and we won."

Jones said the ACLU challenged the law in a federal court just after it was passed. In response, the city added a clause adding conscientious objectors to the list of those exempt.

Although the law is now being credited with a drop in crime, Jones said that was not the law's original purpose. He also pointed out that Kennesaw did not have a big problem with crime before.

"The crime rate wasn't that high to start with. It was 11 burglaries per 1,000 residents in 1981," he said.

According to the Kennesaw Police Department, the city's most recent crime statistics show 243 property crimes per 100,000 residents in 1998, or .243 per 1,000.

Kennesaw passed a law that all heads of households own guns - and the crime rate dropped to the lowest of any city that size - and has stayed there.

quote:

ARTICLE THE FIFTH. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

I posted a link to this not long ago but consistent with a different part of the argument. here's a new relevant part:

"Documents on the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia"

quote:

ARTICLE THE FIFTH. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.3

that latter part is repeated throughout the entire record.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The right to do something implies the right not to do it.
The 1st, for example, does not require people to go to any church, to speak out on any subject, to attend any demostrations, to sign any petition, or to print their own newspaper.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The right to do something implies the right not to do it.
The 1st, for example, does not require people to go to any church, to speak out on any subject, to attend any demostrations, to sign any petition, or to print their own newspaper.

Not exactly.

The constitution says what rights of the people may not be infringed.

There is nothing in the constitution that says that statutes may not require it. Lets switch guns for books as an example.

"A well educated populous, being necessary to the economic security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

so you really think that would preclude congress from passing a law that said - every person must read one book?

Since it does not infringe upon an enumerated right, this would pass with the lowest level of supreme court scrutiny.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The right to do something implies the right not to do it.
The 1st, for example, does not require people to go to any church, to speak out on any subject, to attend any demostrations, to sign any petition, or to print their own newspaper.

Not exactly.

The constitution says what rights of the people may not be infringed.

There is nothing in the constitution that says that statutes may not require it. Lets switch guns for books as an example.

"A well educated populous, being necessary to the economic security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

so you really think that would preclude congress from passing a law that said - every person must read one book?

Since it does not infringe upon an enumerated right, this would pass with the lowest level of supreme court scrutiny.

That would change it from a right to a duty.
For example while the constitution protects he right to trial by jury it does not protect the right to serve on a jury. Jury duty is just that, a duty. You must serve unless excused, not by choice. If it were a right you couls serve on juries when and if you chose. Requireing gun ownership would change it from a right to a duty.
It might technically pass the legal test, but it does not pass the logic test.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The right to do something implies the right not to do it.
The 1st, for example, does not require people to go to any church, to speak out on any subject, to attend any demostrations, to sign any petition, or to print their own newspaper.

Not exactly.

The constitution says what rights of the people may not be infringed.

There is nothing in the constitution that says that statutes may not require it. Lets switch guns for books as an example.

"A well educated populous, being necessary to the economic security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."

so you really think that would preclude congress from passing a law that said - every person must read one book?

Since it does not infringe upon an enumerated right, this would pass with the lowest level of supreme court scrutiny.

That would change it from a right to a duty.
For example while the constitution protects he right to trial by jury it does not protect the right to serve on a jury. Jury duty is just that, a duty. You must serve unless excused, not by choice. If it were a right you couls serve on juries when and if you chose. Requireing gun ownership would change it from a right to a duty.
It might technically pass the legal test, but it does not pass the logic test.

Rights and duties are not opposite. You have a right to the best attorney you care to afford. You have the duty to pay them.