Monday, November 16, 2009

New York Times Endorses Second Amendment

OK, well, it was back in 1866, but still:
The Constitution of the United States . . . provides that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But this restriction is . . . a restriction upon the power of the United States alone, and gave to James Lewis [a Union veteran] no protection against the law of Mississippi, which deprived him, because of his color, of a right which every white man possessed.

It is against just such legislation and such judicial decisions that the first section of the [14th] Amendment is designed to furnish a protection.

Mr. Browning’s Letter and Judge Handy’s Decision,
N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 28, 1866, at 4, col. 1

From McDonald vs. Chicago opening brief.

h/t Of Arms And The Law and the invaluable David Hardy.


BobG said...

Times have sure changed, haven't they?

Crucis said...

Different owners now, I think, or else they've become too inbred.

Anonymous said...

I don't think this means what you think it means. Mississippi was not a state in 1866. It was under the jurisdiction of national govt. The complaint was blacks were not allowed to form armed militias as whites were after President Johnson gave the go ahead for the rearming of the militias. Once blacks could form militias for their protection they were said to be exercising their right to bear arms.