FOOLS RUSH, WHERE THE WISE FEAR TO TREAD
Look before you leap
“Medieval weapons laws?– including a 1328 English statute prohibiting the public carry of edged weapons without royal permission – are at the center of dueling legal opinions in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court,?New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.”
“The plaintiffs are challenging New York’s “proper cause” gun law, which tightly restricts public carry of firearms. If they win, similar laws in several other states will be called into question. That means that concealed carry licensing laws?could be broadly liberalized?for millions of Americans currently living in those more restrictive jurisdictions.”
?“The Statute of Northampton of 1328 remains central to the current debate surrounding the limits and protections the Second Amendment provides to carry arms in public.[1]?The Statute provided that “no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king’s servants in his presence…come before the King’s justices, or other of the King’s ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers” (2 Edw. 3, c.3). Certain Second Amendment scholars hold that the Statute was “not interpreted literally” and was only enforced when weapons were carried with the intent to terrify or threaten or when dangerous and unusual weapons were carried”.
“We can see based on these enforcement and jurisprudential documents that the historical and socio-legal context of the Statute of Northampton suggests that the Statute’s enforceability was wide-ranging across an array of different types of armed force and intentions. Barring the exception of the King’s servants and officials specifically stated in the Statute, the Statute and its enforcement made no exception for any types of armed force to be permissible, nor did it make any distinction between the motives of the user of armed force. These additional documents and cases solidify the idea that the Statute of Northampton was a broad prohibition on the carrying of arms in public. As the Supreme Court considers the issue of the public carrying of arms in the?New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the court should look no further than the Statute of Northampton, its interpretation by Coke and de Bracton, and the Statute’s enforcement.[6]?In so doing, the court should find that the 1689 English Bill of Rights did not guarantee the absolute right to bear arms, and governmental authorities and bodies were within their right by means of the Statute of Northampton and later legislation to restrict and prosecute the carrying of arms in public by private citizens.”
Primary Holding
"Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.
?“Having prevailed in Heller, gun rights activists are seeking the liberalization of restrictions on public carrying of guns outside the home. In the New York case,?some lawyers?and?other parties?are now arguing that medieval statutes restricted only public carry that “terrified” the public, and that such statutes were never actually enforced to prevent “normal” public carry.”
领英推荐
Historians object
“However, most scholars of English and American history vigorously?dispute the accuracy of this claim. In fact, since the Heller decision, the history of firearms regulation in England and the U.S. has been the focus of what Fordham University law professor Saul Cornell?has called an?“explosion of empirical research.”
Excerpts from ‘IRONY’:
There are moments in life when we discover the fallacies in some prior teachings we have received. Such moments, tend to lay caution to youthful idealism and are replaced by new realities. These realities may rattle the foundations of our ideological and spiritual underpinning, but, they still enter our lives and minds without fail.
It becomes a defining moment which can leave us with a sickening feeling that descends to the pit of our stomach. It is a feeling that leaves a void of undefinable characteristics, an emptiness with which we are buffeted by – seemingly – ceaseless complexities in our analytical persuasions; then all that remains is a maddening state of utter confusion.
It is an experience that is sometimes difficult to replace with words; words that portray the consternation or anger which we may feel. Newness can sometimes be perplexing and the past events are not easily forgotten (or cannot be).?Ideas that are already imbedded in us, almost from the moment since our awakening, are not easily removed, but must be accomplished. Though, it is not easy to walk away; putting distance between us and our affinity for these ideas, it must be done. We cannot keep staring into the void, thinking somehow we may find the answer. We must instead, let passion guide our footsteps and drive our search for knowledge. We must not succumb to confusion in our life but seek to recognize that learning is an ongoing process fed by experiences that on occasion, are not pleasant.
.. It cannot be overstated that people (citizens), must take all necessary steps to ensure that the persons whom they elevate to positions of authority or leadership, should not be exalted within ?the mind of the citizen nor that of the person or persons chosen for those leadership positions. ?Because such positions are created -generally- to serve the general welfare of the citizens, constant oversight is required. When due diligence is neglected, it allows for mischief making.
Note:
For example, one may find and ultimately conclude, that – often – what a politician, religious leader, or other leaders tell you?they believe and the policies they will implement does not often correlate after they secure the office which they seek. More often than not, you are left to conclude – from prevailing policies, that the message is: do as I say not as I do…
Thomas Jefferson observed that very point when he wrote, "In questions of power, then, let not more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."
?
?
View Our Full Statement on the recent SC decision -- https://www.dhirubhai.net/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6945753193863643139