Justice Thomas makes much out of Firearms Regulation/laws must fit within the historical context of what firearm ownership means in the United States.

Well, in addition to the Supreme Court permitting the State of Louisiana to ban firearms ownership to blacks. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

Guess what State banned the General Carry of Handguns in settled Counties in 1871? That Would be Texas. This was completely legal under the Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd Amendment at the time. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/l...g-of-deadly-weapons/

Justice Thomas’opinion got the history wrong.

So, you say you want a return to 18th and 19th century Federalism? Well, be careful what you wish for.

I have no problem calling the Federalist Society a bunch of liars.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Justice Thomas makes much out of Firearms Regulation/laws must fit within the historical context of what firearm ownership means in the United States.

Well, in addition to the Supreme Court permitting the State of Louisiana to ban firearms ownership to blacks. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

Guess what State banned the General Carry of Handguns in settled Counties in 1871? That Would be Texas. This was completely legal under the Supreme Court interpretation of the 2nd Amendment at the time. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/l...g-of-deadly-weapons/

Justice Thomas’opinion got the history wrong.

So, you say you want a return to 18th and 19th century Federalism? Well, be careful what you wish for.

I have no problem calling the Federalist Society a bunch of liars.

That was more of a punishment under Reconstruction

Nope.

Reconstruction ended in 1870 in Texas.

March 30 to be exact.

From the Week

"Reagan was also a favorite son of the National Rifle Association, gun control's most effective opponent.

Here's a look at a few gun control measures Reagan played a critical role in:

1. Banning open carry in California.

Back in 1967, says Jacob Sullum at Reason, "the NRA supported the Mulford Act, which banned open carrying of loaded firearms in California. The law, a response to the Black Panthers' conspicuous exercise of the right to armed self-defense, also was supported by Gov. Ronald Reagan." As the bill's conservative sponsor, Don Mulford (R), argued in 1989, "openly carrying a gun is an 'act of violence or near violence,'" Sullum noted. "Apparently Reagan and the NRA agreed." The Mulford Act is still on the books in California, America's most populous state.

2. Banning the sale of machine guns and other automatic weapons.

The NRA fondly cites the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 as "the most sweeping rollback of gun control laws in history." And while it did in fact roll back some of the provisions of the 1968 Gun Control Act, it also contained a provision — banning the sale of machine guns and other fully automatic weapons to civilians — that came back to haunt the NRA. Robert Spitzer, an expert on gun law, tells NPR that it was "a precedent that would open the door for restricting civilian access to semiautomatic, assault-style weapons." Congress did just that in 1994, thanks — very plausibly — to Ronald Reagan. (See below.)

3. Mandating background checks for handgun purchases.

In 1991, Reagan supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, named for his press secretary shot during the 1981 attempt on Reagan's life. That bill passed in 1993, mandating federal background checks and a five-day waiting period. "Every year, an average of 9,200 Americans are murdered by handguns, according to Department of Justice statistics," Reagan wrote in a 1991 op-ed for The New York Times. "This does not include suicides or the tens of thousands of robberies, rapes, and assaults committed with handguns. This level of violence must be stopped."



4. Banning assault weapons.

Despite the law being enacted well after his presidency, Reagan was credited with playing a critical role in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which has since expired. Reagan's personal and effective lobbying helped the bill overcome the strong objections of the NRA. "The vote on the assault weapon ban was contentious and barely passed the House of Representatives," notes Andrew Kaczynski. "At least two members of the House of Representatives credited Reagan with influencing their votes. The bill passed 216-214, a margin of two votes."

For anyone seeking a path toward common ground on gun control, there are interesting lessons here.

It's worth mentioning, of course, that times have changed: Modern gun-rights maximalism wasn't mainstream until about the time Reagan, a lifelong member of the NRA, became president. The NRA, for example, supported or even championed many gun control measures for most of its existence, until hardliner Harlon Carter became head of the organization in 1977, as UCLA law professor Adam Winkler detailed in The Atlantic. "Reagan's California," Winkler added, may have had "one of the strictest gun-control regimes in the nation," though Reagan's views "changed considerably" during the 1970s, too.

And that's the first lesson: Support for gun laws is cyclical, and has been since the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment. My colleague Ryan Cooper was right to say there is another federal gun regulation in America's future, at some point down the line.

If Reagan did turn against gun regulations in the 1970s, his views shifted back sometime after he was shot by John Hinckley Jr. in 1981. And that points to the second big lesson from Reagan's views on gun control: They appear to be influenced by his personal experiences with people aiming guns at him.

Reagan cited his attempted assassination in his 1991 speech backing the Brady Bill, as well as honoring the other three men wounded in the attack: Jim Brady, who was shot in the head and paralyzed; Washington, D.C., police officer Thomas Delahanty, shot in the neck and forced to retire due to nerve damage; and Secret Service Agent Tim McCarthy, shot in the chest and liver. "This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now — the Brady bill — had been law back in 1981," Reagan said. He gave a favorable nod to Jim and Sarah Brady's work; the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which Sarah Brady led at the time, is one of the NRA's fiercest critics.

In California, Reagan threw his support behind the Mulford Act after a heavily armed group of Black Panthers gathered at the state capitol while the new governor was supposed to be hosting a group of eighth-graders for fried chicken, Winkler recounts at The Atlantic. That same afternoon, Reagan told reporters that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Mulford quickly added a provision to his bill barring loaded firearms from the capitol, except for when carried by law enforcement.

Banning loaded weapons from the legislature may seem like a normal and prudent idea, but ordinary citizens could freely roam the U.S. Capitol until 1983, when a bomb detonated outside the Senate Republican cloakroom and House Minority Leader Robert Byrd's office. That wasn't the first bomb attack in the Capitol, and gunmen had fired at congressmen from the gallery in 1954, says Josh Zeitz at Politico Magazine, but after the '83 bomb congressmen finally started walling themselves off from citizens and, especially, citizens bearing arms. Even then, putting metal detectors at the door of the Capitol was controversial.

The Capitol complex has only gotten more locked down since then. Zeitz makes the obvious connection: "Ironically, as Congress has become less hospitable to gun safety laws, and as conservative Republican legislators have grown more strident in their desire to see citizens carry open and concealed weapons everywhere — in churches and schools, on college campuses, at bars and restaurants — the one venue that has grown more gun-free, more secure, and more restrictive is the building they work in."

This is wading into potentially dangerous territory, so let me be clear: The correct way to get more gun control is emphatically not to attack or threaten elected representatives. But it does seem true that when powerful constituencies feel personally threatened or aggrieved, they often appear more likely to support gun restrictions. After Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) was gravely shot and six supporters and staffers killed by a gunman in 2011, for example, she dedicated herself to the cause of gun control with her husband, Cmr. Mark Kelly, a Navy veteran.

The third major lesson from Reagan is that it matters who is proposing and backing new gun laws. When we trust people, we are more likely to listen to their ideas and have faith that they have, if not our best interests at heart, at least an aversion to harming our cause. Thus, right from the start, Democrats are more likely to support policies from Democratic presidents, Republicans are more likely to support proposals from GOP presidents, and the NRA is likely to consider ideas floated by gun-rights advocates and gun owners.

The NRA trusted Reagan; it has never trusted Obama. The closest the U.S. came to getting modest new firearms restrictions this century, in 2013, the sponsors of the bill were proud gun owners Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), an opponent of gun control, and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who was endorsed by the NRA in 2012, in an election where he ran a TV ad featuring him shooting a piece of environmental legislation with a rifle. The NRA and Manchin parted ways in 2013.

There is a broad middle ground on gun laws. Proponents of tighter gun control, defeated and often demoralized after years of losses, would generally be open to if not thrilled by adding some modest restrictions. So would most Americans, and a majority of gun owners. The NRA, fueled by years of wins, isn't giving ground. That's where we're at.

Ronald Reagan, probably to the surprise of both gun control advocates and opponents, occupied that area of broad consensus. If the NRA really loved Reagan, they might remember that."

_____________________

Nixon once famously said if it were up to him he would throw every handgun into the ocean.

It was a Reconstruction Era law rammed through the Texas Legislature by the Republican reconstructionists.

It was also never widely enforced.

Gun carry was still common in the 1880s. Luke Short shot Jim Courtwright on Main Street in 1887. Both were wearing guns and were known to at all times.

First, Reconstruction had Ended a Year before.

Second, having to take an oath following armed insurrection and allowing Freemen to vote were not evils.

Republicans in Texas lost elections in 1871.

Calling it a Reconstruction Law (when Reconstruction had ended) does not invalidate
it.

I guess President Reagan’s positions was because he was too feeble and envy had taken over.


I do not support the banning of carrying firearms, but lying about what the historical understanding of the 2nd Amendment which the NRA, New York decision, and Federalist Society has done does not serve US Policy making nor knowledge.

Read this: https://repository.tcu.edu/bit...80029.pdf?sequence=1

I will. It cannot change the fact Texas was Readmitted to the Union in 1870.

You know what else it does not change the legitimacy of Reconstitution laws.

You know like Freemen voting, and the Equal Protection Amendments the Texas GOP in their written platform want to abolish.

Just skimming your paper Texas appears to have restricted handguns again in the 1880s. I guess that was illegitimate too.

The Supreme Court was clear, states regulating their citizens could be as free or restrictive with guns as the State Legislature wanted. There was no Federal Right. Your paper cannot change that either.

The 1870-1871 legislation was still Reconstruction Era legislation rammed through the Texas Legislature by reconstructionists — the only point that “I” am arguing at the moment. What Rabbithabbit and Duggaboye said is historically factually correct.

The history books called it the reconstruction era until the compromise of 1877. That was with the Rutherford Hayes presidency.

Guys??? It doesn't fit little lord fontleroys agenda.....

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
It was a Reconstruction Era law rammed through the Texas Legislature by the Republican reconstructionists.

It was also never widely enforced.

Gun carry was still common in the 1880s. Luke Short shot Jim Courtwright on Main Street in 1887. Both were wearing guns and were known to at all times.

Anecdotes are interesting but Texas used to be a leader in gun control:

>>>>Although Texans tout their state’s historical image as the land of Wild West shootouts and quick-draw cowboys and jealously guard their present-day reputation as a banner gun-rights state, Texas has historically had strict gun laws — some of the strictest in the nation. The story of their enactment in the turbulent post-Civil War era can provide valuable guidance as we confront our own gun violence crisis today.


Texas joined the United States as a state with lax gun laws. Before the Civil War, the state’s only gun-control laws were those that prohibited slaves from carrying weapons without their masters’ permission.

Things began to change in 1866, when former Confederates (calling themselves Conservatives) briefly controlled Texas. Gov. James Throckmorton called upon the legislature to tax the carrying of any pistol or knife in public. He had spent the war years as a Confederate officer policing the state’s northern and western borders, a region filled with well-armed deserters and desperados. He had little use for the “men and boys, vagabonds and vagrants” who “have arms about their people on all occasions.” Lawmakers’ fear of disarming poor whites, many of whom were Civil War veterans, derailed his weapon-tax proposal, but it became a harbinger of things to come.

Reconstruction brought military occupation, a new state constitution and a government in Austin controlled by the fledgling Republican Party. Texas Republicans were a biracial coalition of white Unionists and black freedmen led by Union veteran Edmund J. Davis of Corpus Christi. As governor, Davis promised to restore law and order to the state, which had gone from being pestered by criminal gangs to being terrorized by pro-Confederate vigilante groups like the Ku Klux Klan. As the primary targets of Klan violence, Republicans strongly believed laws limiting the carrying of weapons in public were necessary to restore peace in Texas.


Davis called upon the legislature to do something about “the universal habit of carrying arms,” which “is largely to be attributed the frequency of homicides in this state.” Lawmakers responded in 1870 with a prohibition of all weapons (including rifles and shotguns) at key public gatherings like polling places, church services and entertainment events.

But this push for gun control wasn’t entirely partisan. The following year, a critical mass of Democratic state legislators joined forces with the Republican majority to revamp the law and prohibit the carrying of any deadly weapon in public, whether worn openly or concealed. It became not only against the law to take a firearm to a crowded place, but also illegal to carry any “pistol, dirk, dagger, slung-shot, sword-cane, spear, brass-knuckles, bowie knife, or any other kind of knife manufactured or sold for the purposes of offense or defense,” with very few exceptions.

Postwar gun violence was so bloody that doing something about it had become a bipartisan policy. The Texans who endured the Civil War and its aftermath surmised that fewer guns in public meant fewer headstones in the cemetery.


While we lack crime statistics from that time period, all of the indirect evidence points toward a statewide reduction in violent crime after the passage of the deadly weapon laws, indicating they were correct. Commentators recognized the fact that “the firearm bill has robbed rowdies of their six-shooters, their bowie knives and their sword canes,” and Davis praised its “most happy effect” throughout the state.

But the far more telling evidence comes from the fact that when Democrats retook control of state government, they scrapped every piece of the Republican Party’s law-and-order platform — save for the deadly weapon laws. This was remarkable because violence — in violation of the weapon restrictions — was integral to Democrats coming to dominate Texas politics and creating the Jim Crow system of segregation. White militia companies blocked Republican voters from polling places, and armed, white-on-black intimidation and violence were commonplace.

Yet, despite benefiting from violations of the weapons ban, Democrats not only kept it in place, they also increased penalties and closed loopholes between the 1880s and 1920s. Texas Democrats experienced an early and strong progressive impulse near the turn of the 20th century. Many of these reformers firmly believed tougher laws and harsher penalties would disincentivize the habitual or casual carrying of weapons in public. In 1905, the minimum fine was raised from $25 to $100, and those unable to pay served time in county jails, laboring on road projects and county farms. The reformist Democrats went even further in the 1920s by banning automatic weapons and levying a 50 percent tax on all pistol sales in the state.


This tax proved ineffective when savvy salesmen began offering long-term leases for pistols at the old market price for purchase. Yet, undaunted, reform-minded Democrats passed a law making it a felony to unlawfully carry arms in Texas. It gave judges and juries the option of sending repeat offenders to the state penitentiary for up to three years. But for the veto of Gov. Oscar B. Colquitt, the state most closely identified with gunslingers and shootouts would have punished habitual pistol-toting as a felony. Colquitt threw the progressives a bone by supporting the addition of a new crime to the Texas penal code: assault with a prohibited weapon, which carried harsh penalties.

These deadly weapon laws were a significant departure from the trends set by other Southern and Western states. Most Southern states tended to prohibit only concealed weapons, while Western states largely allowed gun-toting outside settled areas. Texas’ laws put it at the forefront of the comprehensive gun regulations that we are familiar with today.

Although the deadly weapon laws were technically universal, without a doubt the Texans most vulnerable to arrest for unlawfully carrying arms were those of African American or Mexican descent. But their misuse by white supremacists during the era of Jim Crow should not overshadow the laws’ effectiveness at reducing violence or their reflection of widely held social values among Texans.


These laws also aren’t some relic of the distant past. They stayed on the books for over a century. It wasn’t until the mid-1990s, when the Republican Party became dominant in Texas politics, that a loosening of firearms regulations in the name of personal self-defense began. In 1995 then-Gov. George W. Bush signed a law authorizing properly licensed residents to carry concealed handguns, and in 2015 Gov. Greg Abbott put his signature to a bill allowing them to carry openly as well. Restrictions upon bladed weapons and metal knuckles have similarly been curtailed over the past 20 years.

The experience of the past generation has obscured the Lone Star State’s deep and long-standing history of gun regulation. That history is relevant today: It’s a reminder that when rampant bloodshed gripped Texas in the wake of the Civil War, a bipartisan group of lawmakers came together to pass strict gun laws that probably reduced violence, and whose legality and effectiveness Texans rarely questioned.

Yes, there were no organized pro-gun rights organizations in the late 19th century fighting back against these laws like the National Rifle Association does today. But the mood in the wake of El Paso and Odessa is reminiscent of the one from the turbulent Reconstruction years — a growing consensus is demanding that we do something to curtail gun-related deaths in our country. A century and a half ago, such a consensus in Texas led to strict regulation of deadly weapons, regulations that were both successful and relatively uncontroversial until recent decades. It is a history worth remembering.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...-leader-gun-control/

The initial laws were still passed by Reconstruction Era Republicans.

And the laws were really never enforced.

My family ranched central Texas in that era…one of my great great uncles put together trail drives from South Texas up the Chisholm Trail from about 1870 until the railroad came to Fort Worth and still drove cattle to Ft Worth through the early 20th.

For some reason they were very photographic back then and I have pictures of them wearing guns in Ft. Worth in the early 1900s and many pictures from San Antonio in the late 19th.

When I was a kid…every truck in the country had a rifle in it.

There you go again-
injecting reality into the discussion.

The law was passed in 1871.

Texas was readmitted March 30, 1870.

It cannot me a Reconstruction Law.

And, assuming the falsehood is true, that does not make the law illegitimate.

You guys are illogical.

Reconstruction had ended before the law passed. It was over in the 1889s when passed again.

The History Bools say Texas was readmitted in 1870. The history books say, President Grant ended reconstruction in 1870.

Those are indisputable facts.

Republicans in Texas started loosing elections in 1871 when the army no longer enforced Reconstruction following 1870.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
There you go again-
injecting reality into the discussion.

You two ought to get a room.

There's a difference between a rifle in a truck and everybody carrying a Glock, Lane. I hear that "rifle in the truck rack back in the old days" bullshit from every redneck I know. I grew up fairly rural too and I know there's some truth to it but comparing it to today's gun-toting populace is a false analogy. When you and I were in school, kids weren't bringing AR's and Glocks to school and shooting 15 or 20 people. Even given that, I suspect that if somebody had shown up at my high school with an AR-15 or an M1A1 hanging on the gun rack in the rear truck window, there might have been a different reaction than seeing a bolt action .22 Long rifle.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
The law was passed in 1871.

Texas was readmitted March 30, 1870.

It cannot me a Reconstruction Law.

And, assuming the falsehood is true, that does not make the law illegitimate.

You guys are illogical.

Reconstruction had ended before the law passed. It was over in the 1889s when passed again.

The History Bools say Texas was readmitted in 1870. The history books say, President Grant ended reconstruction in 1870.

Those are indisputable facts.

Republicans in Texas started loosing elections in 1871 when the army no longer enforced Reconstruction following 1870.

To be fair, I don't think reconstructionist control ended in Texas on a date certain declared by the government.

perhaps those of us that know of the militia activity in Texas in the 1870's
and
the subsequent interactions thereof are just a bit better educated in Texas history than the books you are allowed to access

And, just to circle back to the point.

The plain simple fact is that firearms regulation has never been more lax in the United States than it is now. The open or concealed carry of handguns like it's done today in Texas is something that would have resulted in a felony arrest just a few decades ago.

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
perhaps those of us that know of the militia activity in Texas in the 1870's

and the subsequent interactions thereof are just a bit better educated in Texas history than the books you are allowed to access

I'll argue education and knowledge of Texas, US and world history any time you like since you bring it up. Not that I ever would. I reiterate that you and Lane oughta get a room. You're remarkably similar in your know-it-all attitudes.

I think we know who on AR thinks the Civil War was fought over state rights and not slavery.

I wonder how many believe the South’s position on slavery was morally okay or justifiable?

It is not subject to dispute when the President end’s Reconstruction in Texas in 1870, and read its Texas into the Union in 1870 that Federal Reconstruction in Texas has ended.

Yet, here we are.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by DuggaBoye:
There you go again-
injecting reality into the discussion.

You two ought to get a room.

There's a difference between a rifle in a truck and everybody carrying a Glock, Lane. I hear that "rifle in the truck rack back in the old days" bullshit from every redneck I know. I grew up fairly rural too and I know there's some truth to it but comparing it to today's gun-toting populace is a false analogy. When you and I were in school, kids weren't bringing AR's and Glocks to school and shooting 15 or 20 people. Even given that, I suspect that if somebody had shown up at my high school with an AR-15 or an M1A1 hanging on the gun rack in the rear truck window, there might have been a different reaction than seeing a bolt action .22 Long rifle.

Mike,
I graduated high school in 1982. One of my friends had a Colt AR-15 type rifle. He brought to school in his truck all the time. Another had a M1 Carbine with a custom 30 round mag. We took it to the school Ag farm in the school truck. I had a 70 series Colt 1911. Kept it in my truck at school all the time. There were probably a 100 guns in my high school parking lot every day.

It is a fact the Reconstructionist Republican controlled Texas Legislature passed the 1871 law.

Read the reference I cited.

They controlled the Texas Legislature until 1873.