General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGun laws were tougher in old Tombstone
But as with much of the Wild West, myth has replaced history. The 1881 shootout took place in a narrow alley, not at the corral. Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday weren't seen as heroic until later; they were initially charged with murder.
And one fact is usually ignored: Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West's most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.
"You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff's office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn't pick it up again until you were leaving town," said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. "It was an effort to control the violence."
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/23/nation/la-na-tombstone-20110123
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
deminks
(11,014 posts)JoeStuckInOH
(544 posts)Most of the big ones being civil rights violations, but it's not hard to find 2nd Amendments rights violations too.
The neat thing is, both civil rights violations (restricting the rights of minorities) and unlawful seizure/forfeiture of firearms are both done in the name of "feeling safer". But that doesn't make either right nor constitutional.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)If so, I think you are under the mistaken impression that the second amendment has always been interpreted as including individual not in a militia.
That was only decided in 2008 by a conservative SCOTUS:
For most of the last century, the interpretation of the Second Amendment has been that the right to bear arms is a collective right, such as with military service; Thursday's ruling says gun ownership is also an individual right.
The 5-4 ruling grows out of a Washington, D.C., case in which a security guard sued the district for prohibiting him from keeping his handgun at home. In the District of Columbia, it is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited. The rules are so strict, they essentially regulate handguns out of existence. The regulations were intended to curb gun violence in the capital city.
The ruling struck down the ban on constitutional grounds, saying it flew in the face of the constitutional right to bear arms.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91913260
JoeStuckInOH
(544 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Just sharing information.
You got pretty defensive pretty fast there.
Are you comparing gun safety regulations to slavery?
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)VermontKevin
(1,473 posts)wish to read SCOTUS's repudiation of Plessy and the Heller decision and notice why they are different.
BannonsLiver
(16,369 posts)
hack89
(39,171 posts)can you show when in our history has private ownership of guns outside of the militia not been the norm? Can you show me states that actively disarmed citizens if they were not part of the militia?
If what you say is true then there should be case law you can point to.
As it stands now, your point is moot. Heller is the law of the land. And it says the 2A supports an individual right. Interesting enough, so did the Democratic platform for years, President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Your position is not mainstream within the Democratic party.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)You may want to re-read it... It's the part about the city of Tombstone confiscating guns from people who weren't in militias... I understand that Tombstone is not a state, but the law wasn't made at the state level, or federal level.
And not just AZ: A visitor arriving in Wichita, Kansas in 1873, the heart of the Wild West era, would have seen signs declaring, "Leave Your Revolvers At Police Headquarters, and Get a Check."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
A simple challenge to you: You haven't defined what you mean by "the norm" so that's not really a valid question until you quantify that.
And I never posited that Heller isn't the law of the land. Go back and read my post if you need clarification. Create all the strawmen you want, but my reply was in response to someone who apparently thought that individual gun ownership/use had somehow always been protected by the 2nd A, and thought that Tombstone gun laws violated rights, when they didn't.
Is that clearer?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Americans, rural or urban, were able to buy and carry weapons freely independently of militia service. Yes - some cities implemented strict gun control (which the 2A allows) but it had nothing to do with the militia. You cannot show me strong case law that says otherwise.
Secondly, many state constitutions explicitly frame the right to own guns as an individual right - state constitutions written at the same time as the federal one. Now, am I to believe that the after limiting guns to militia service in the federal constitution, they went home and did exactly the opposite for their states?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 3, 2017, 01:05 PM - Edit history (1)
In the 19th Century, public safety was a greater consideration than personal rights to posess guns and gunpowder, legally speaking:
By the close of the eighteenth century, there was already a tradition
of statutes regulating the storage and transport of gunpowder.
These laws were oftentimes enacted to protect the growing population
centers, such as Boston,"6 Philadelphia,' and New York City. 6 2 Safe
storage laws, however, were not limited to the largest cities. In
Pennsylvania, regulations for the storage of gunpowder appeared
within the statutes that provided for the initial incorporation of new
towns alongside the provisions that created commons and streets and
regulated public nuisances. 63
The statutes provide for the safe storage and transport of
gunpowder in a variety of ways. Limits on the amount of gunpowder
a person could possess were common and typically in the range of
twenty to thirty pounds. 164 Moreover, the amount of powder a person
could legally keep was subject to regulation. Many of the statutes
specify how the powder a person could legally keep had to be stored.
For example, the Pennsylvania statute that established the Town of
Carlisle specified that anyone keeping gunpowder "in any house,
shop, cellar, store or other place within the said borough" must keep it
"in the highest story of the house ... unless it be at least fifty yards
from any dwelling house.' ' 165 In New York, the law required one to
separate powder "into four stone jugs or tin cannisters, which shall not
contain more than seven pounds each.' 66
Early Americans were permitted to own more gunpowder than they
could physically possess. The powder in excess of the legal limit had
to be kept, at the owner's expense, in a public magazine. 67 Removal
or transport of the powder from the powder house was also subject to
safety regulations. In Boston, when gunpowder in excess of the legal
limit was transported to the public magazine, it had to be transported
"in a waggon or carriage, closely covered with leather or canvas, and
without iron on any part thereof, to be first approbated by the
Firewards of said town, and marked in capitals, with the words
approved powder carriage.
And in the case of historical accuracy in interpretation of rights, in terms of individual vs collective:
of the people. '6 2 Although this term has come to be associated with
the notion of individual rights in modern legal thought, in the
eighteenth century, the phrase "right of the people" could be used to
describe rights held by the people as a collective entity, or as
individuals.63 Thus, the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights described
the right of the people to legislate as a right of the people, a usage that
clearly connoted a collective right held by individuals acting in concert
for public purposes.' This is how Albert Gallatin, a leading
Pennsylvanian politician, described the nature of rights affirmed in the
Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights in a letter to Judge Alexander
Addison.65 The 1776 constitution, Gallatin observed, wisely included
a "declaration of the rights of the people at large or considered as
individuals., 66 Gallatin's description of the character of the
Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights as either something possessed by
individuals or the "people at large" illustrates how different the
language of rights was in the Founding Era.67 The right to bear arms
was a perfect example of a civic right, a "right[] of the people at
large," a right that citizens exercised when they acted together for a
distinctly public purpose.68
............................................................................
The Pennsylvania Constitution also declared that the right to bear
arms existed as a means for the people to act in "defence of themselves
and the state. ' v2 Modern gun rights scholarship has consistently
misread this phrase as stating an individual, private right of selfdefense.73
The Pennsylvania Constitution did not assert a right of
each person to bear arms in defense of himself and the state, but
rather framed the right in a collective, as opposed to an individualistic,
formulation. It is important to recognize that the militia served to
protect communities, as well as the state, against internal and external
threats. The militia existed to deal with internal dangers such as riot
or insurrection, as well as the threat of invasion.
Additional contextual support for the collective reading of this
provision is provided by one of the few contemporary commentaries
on constitution-making in Pennsylvania authored by a writer who
adopted the pen name Demophilus."4 Although the exact identity of
the author is a mystery, he appears to have been part of the
constitutional party that drafted the state constitution. 5 Demophilus
echoed the ideas expressed by radical Whig theorists who, in choosing
to frame the right to bear arms as a means for citizens to protect
themselves and the state, simply followed the standard Whig
understanding of the role of the militia as a means of defending the
people and the state against external and internal enemies.76
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr
Ten of the thirteen colonies impressed (temporarily confiscated) privately owned firearms for the war effort against England. Impressed guns were eventually returned to their owners, but the seizure itself might leave the owner without a firearm to defend against attack. To the Founding Fathers, leaving an individual without a gun to defend himself was immaterial in light of the public need for that firearm. Guns were privately owned, but they were also considered assets to be used if necessary for the public good, even if it undermined individual rights.
Following the Revolution, Virginia passed a law requiring all demobilized soldiers to turn their weapons in to the state, and they were hardly the only state with armories for storing and safeguarding militia weapons.
https://riversong.wordpress.com/the-real-second-amendment/
And as any Constitutional Law student will tell you, having a right to something doesn't mean you are not subject to administrative restrictions by the government. See also alcohol use and driving. Both are rights, and both are subject to restrictions.
Crunchy Frog
(26,579 posts)
hunter
(38,310 posts)A fool and his guns were soon separated. They regarded most men fools.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)thinking from the wrist up.
And I used that information when I survived an armed carjacking and got out of it with my car, to boot.
hunter
(38,310 posts)Literal gun grabbing and smashing. Not the sort of thing a kid should see. It still revisits me in nightmares.
But it was astonishing how fast the guy went from being the aggressor to the fearful sniveling man-child threatening to sue her.
My great grandmas were hunters, my great grandfathers dreamers. It's a dynamic that still exists in our family. It's still wild west matriarchal, as is my wife's family.
We're pacifists by necessity, not by natural inclination.
I was raised Jehovah's Witness and then Quaker. My mom rejected the Witnesses and they rejected her because she couldn't stay out of politics. Jehovah's Witnesses are supposed to be apolitical.
My ancestors landed in the American wilderness escaping war and other troubles in Europe. They also avoided the U.S. Civil War.
One of my grandfather's was a conscientious objector in World War II. He made himself useful as a welder building and repairing ships for the Merchant Marine.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Response to ehrnst (Original post)
JonLP24 This message was self-deleted by its author.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)
HeartachesNhangovers
(814 posts)some 19th century frontier town?
Let me guess, you aren't advocating that we adopt any other law, custom or practice from Tombstone, right? Just the gun laws. If so, there's pretty much no logic to this point, except: "I get to cherry-pick whatever I want from ancient history, and demand that society adopt that particular item."
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)My post was addressing the myth that gun laws were much looser back in the day.
If you are not one of those who was laboring under that delusion, then the OP doesn't apply do you, now does it?
I hope that clarifies things for you.
HeartachesNhangovers
(814 posts)"back in the day". You seem to think that matters, but it doesn't.
Second: By pointing out what gun laws were like in Tombstone in the 1800's, you didn't provide any information at all about what guns laws were like in the rest of the country at the same time. Since Tombstone always seems to come up as the only example of a town with no open carry, I assume that ONLY Tombstone had a restriction like this (no open carry - conceal carry all you want), and therefore it is the exception that proves the rule: Gun laws were nonexistent or lax in the 19th century in the American West.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)to start one with some bad guys.
3 dead, 3 wounded.
Ah justice.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)In fact, the American West's most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public
Sort of obvious point.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)in the OP.
Is that clearer?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Simply enforcing the law, or taking advantage of it?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Which is about the fact that there were stricter gun regulations in Tombstone than there are now.
I mean, if you want to gun down a straw man - that's your problem. None here for you.
See what I did there?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Ever try to bring a gun, carried or otherwise into NYC? Me neither other than as a cop, nor would I want to. Not even dropping it off at the local PD. You get arrested for a pocket knife. Pretty strict laws, there.
The fact that enforcing the law lead to a notorious shootout leaving 3 dead, is obviously related to the "tougher" law you mentioned.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Do you need to check your firearm at the sheriff's office now in Tombstone?
No? Well now you get it.
Reading the actual post before firing off a snarky reply would have clarified that, and saved you time you could have spent over in the gun group.
Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. - from the OP you are having a fit over.
And you think that the law killed three people, and not the people with the guns.
Got it.
Now give us another strawman rant about NYC....
jmg257
(11,996 posts)So sorry I missed that point - didn't get that THAT was the comparison you were making in the OP.
As for my point...You really don't get it, at all. Enforcing the law, nefariously or not, led to 3 people being killed in a shoot out. Bad guys most likely...illegally possessing sidearms in Tombstone, apparently...
Dead by being shot (by those enforcing the law) - no doubt.
Not much else to read into these facts, really.
All related to your OP 'cause the fact was spelled out in your OP.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And no, "enforcing that law led to three people being killed" is not the topic that the article addresses.
It's about the difference in the laws, then and now, and that many people are under the mistaken impression that gun regulations are a new thing.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"In this town, pretty much everyone carries a gun," said John Wiest, 65, a storekeeper who patted a Ruger semiautomatic pistol on his side.
"I carry it into the bank when I go in to make a deposit each morning," said Dave Ericson, 60, a California native who moved here last year and wears a working reproduction of an 1873 Colt Peacemaker in a hand-tooled holster on his hip. "No one even looks up."
A few shops and restaurants in the historic district, including Big Nose Kate's Saloon, remain true to the Old West gun ordinances that were common on the frontier and have posted "No Weapons Allowed" on their doors. A block away, the OK Corral gunfight site similarly bars anyone from bringing a real gun to the fake gunfight.
Still, many here view the idea of gun control — even restricting sales of the extended-ammunition magazine used in the Tucson shootings — as little better than cattle-rustling.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)And they are not considered violations of the 21st amendment.
Those regulations are in the interest of public safety, and outlaw neither drinking nor driving.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)But since you brought it up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/did-the-wild-west-have-mo_b_956035.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-gun-control/2012/12/21/6ffe0ae8-49fd-11e2-820e-17eefac2f939_story.html?
In Kentucky, when a state court struck down their concealed carry ban in 1822, the state constitution was quickly amended to provide explicitly that the individual right to bear arms was “subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons”.
Though most of the laws regulated concealed carry, several states with constitutional protections for gun rights – including Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma – restricted or banned open carry, too. Only Idaho’s ban on open carry was ruled unconstitutional in 1902.
Bans on concealed carry spread to the frontier. In 1887, Montana banned the concealed carry of any “deadly weapon” within city limits, including pistols, daggers, slingshots and brass knuckles. Violators received six months in jail or a hefty fine. In 1890, Oklahoma passed an even broader law that applied throughout the territory, and made it unlawful for all except law enforcement personnel “to carry concealed or on or about his person, saddle, saddle bags, any pistol, revolver, bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung-shot, sword cane, spear, metal knuckles, or any other kind of knife or instrument manufactured or sold for the purpose of defense”.
This kind of gun control was sufficiently widespread that the Washington State Supreme Court could write in 1907, “Nearly all states have enacted laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons”.
.............................................................................................
A statute adopted at the Massachusetts 1713-14 legislative session complained, “Whereas by the indiscreet firing of guns laden with shot and ball within the town and harbour of Boston, the lives and limbs of many persons have been lost, and others have been in great danger, as well as other damage has been sustained”, the firing of any “gun or pistol” in Boston (“the islands thereto belonging excepted”) was prohibited.
Ten of the thirteen colonies impressed (temporarily confiscated) privately owned firearms for the war effort against England. Impressed guns were eventually returned to their owners, but the seizure itself might leave the owner without a firearm to defend against attack. To the Founding Fathers, leaving an individual without a gun to defend himself was immaterial in light of the public need for that firearm. Guns were privately owned, but they were also considered assets to be used if necessary for the public good, even if it undermined individual rights.
Following the Revolution, Virginia passed a law requiring all demobilized soldiers to turn their weapons in to the state, and they were hardly the only state with armories for storing and safeguarding militia weapons.
https://riversong.wordpress.com/the-real-second-amendment/
Raster
(20,998 posts)...
Rhiannon12866
(205,161 posts)Republicans are picturing, too. Of course they're overlooking history - what else is new?? They expect one of the Earp brothers with a quicker draw to suddenly appear and take the "bad guy with a gun" out. Too bad if he has an arsenal of automatic weapons and is shooting from the 32nd floor... Lots of "good guys" had guns in LV, and they were useless. 