• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Imagine You Are John Jay (State Gun Confiscation in 1790)

Guy Incognito

DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
11,216
Reaction score
2,846
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Here is a hypothetical to test your understanding of the original intent of the second amendment. Imagine it is 1790, and you are John Jay. There is a case before the Supreme Court on a law in State X, duly enacted by the legislature of State D, which confiscates all guns. The Supreme Court of State X has already held that the law does not violate the State constitution of State X, but the petitioner has brought this case before you arguing that such a law violates the second amendment of the US Constitution. How do you rule?

[This is not an opinion question; there is a right way and a wrong way.]
 
How does the legislature of State D enact a law for State X?
 

John Jay would have ruled in favor of overturning the state law because it is contrary to the constitution. Its not an issue of states rights its a constitutional issue, which is quite clear. Especially given the 14th amendment.
 
American said:
How does the legislature of State D enact a law for State X?
Click to expand...

Technically, it was the Supreme Court of State D.

Either way, it makes no sense.

Color me surprised.....
 
I John Jay arrest and convict all of the legislators that passed this unconstitutional BS for violation of their constitutional oath and drag them through the streets for all the people to spit on them on their way to the gallows where they are hung and left to rot until their heads pop off. The people are so pleased to see the constitution upheld that I am elected President the following year. arty
 
PirateMk1 said:
John Jay would have ruled in favor of overturning the state law because it is contrary to the constitution. Its not an issue of states rights its a constitutional issue, which is quite clear. Especially given the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

There was no 14th Amendment.
 
American said:
There was no 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

I don't think there was a second amendment in 1790 either since I think it wasn't ratified until 1791.
 
Fisher said:
I don't think there was a second amendment in 1790 either since I think it wasn't ratified until 1791.
Click to expand...

Well since everything is subjective I interpret 1790 to be 1970. Jay John is dyslexic.

In my subjective interpretation of the OP I would also become the fifth face carved on Mt. Rushmore and the SC gets replaced with a magic 8 ball.
 
blaxshep said:
Well since everything is subjective I interpret 1790 to be 1970. Jay John is dyslexic.

In my subjective interpretation of the OP I would also become the fifth face carved on Mt. Rushmore and the SC gets replaced with a magic 8 ball.
Click to expand...

The Dakotas were not part if the US in 1790 so you wouldn't have had jurisdiction. You could have confiscated Mt. Vernon and turned it into a shooting range if you so desired though.
 
American said:
How does the legislature of State D enact a law for State X?
Click to expand...
It's a typo. Rather than fixating on a typo, which should be obvious considering that x and d are next to each other on a keyboard. why not approach this thread in good faith?
 
Fisher said:
I don't think there was a second amendment in 1790 either since I think it wasn't ratified until 1791.
Click to expand...

Correct. That is not a typo, merely my own stupidity. Let's all assume it says 1792.
 
Fisher said:
The Dakotas were not part if the US in 1790 so you wouldn't have had jurisdiction. You could have confiscated Mt. Vernon and turned it into a shooting range if you so desired though.
Click to expand...

Damn it!
 
Guy Incognito said:
Correct. That is not a typo, merely my own stupidity. Let's all assume it says 1792.
Click to expand...

Well words and numbers are open to subjectivity right so 1790, 1792 what ever you think it should mean is good enough. Its not like 1970 can ONLY mean 1970.
 

Always with the binary thinking. Why are there only two answers possible?

To make a decision in such a case, we need to know why the laws were enacted in two different states - D and X. Had there been a rebellion or a conspiracy to overthrow the government of the state(s)?

Were the men of the states in question refusing to join the militia, as required in the Second Amendment?

provide background
 

The rebellion had been hiding on the ice plant of Hoth (Planet D) when the Death Star (Planet X) came to confiscate all their blasters. The rebels were clearly in violation of the Nanny Empire which was only trying to enforce peaceful blaster-control regulations before some mentally ill rebel with a scary looking "Assault fighter" committed mass murder by blasting an exhaust vent killing all the school children on the Death Star.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Correct. That is not a typo, merely my own stupidity. Let's all assume it says 1792.
Click to expand...

Then I suppose in 1790 something, John Jay would have concluded that militias are organizations that can be regulated by the respective states under the Constitution. As long as the state paid for the guns it confiscated (takings clause satisfied) and maintained an armed militia of some form as is implicitly required by the Constitution in its plain-text meaning, then the state was within its rights to prohibit guns. John Jay would then move to another state if that were the one he was living in
 
Would this not interfere the general welfare of the union? I would like to know more about the intent of the confiscation. How could Congress call up the militia of State X if it were unarmed?
 
Guy Incognito said:
It's a typo. Rather than fixating on a typo, which should be obvious considering that x and d are next to each other on a keyboard. why not approach this thread in good faith?
Click to expand...



What Difference At This Point Does It Make?
 
The second amendment (nor any other amendment) did not apply to the states originally but John Jay would most likely say

take the bastards who passed such a law out and hang them
 
In 1790 the citizens would have risen in armed rebellion. They'd just overthrown one king for similar offenses, they wouldn't have been shy about hanging a State gov't for crossing that line...
 
TurtleDude said:
The second amendment (nor any other amendment) did not apply to the states originally…
Click to expand...

Really? The Second Amendment says that the right affirmed therein shall not be infringed. It doesn't say that only the federal government is prohibited from infringing this right. It forbids any infringement of this right. I just do not see where you or anyone else gets out of this an authority of lower governments to infringe this right.
 
Goshin said:
In 1790 the citizens would have risen in armed rebellion. They'd just overthrown one king for similar offenses, they wouldn't have been shy about hanging a State gov't for crossing that line...
Click to expand...

It's a shame that our countrymen have grown so docile and complacent and cowardly that we allow our public servants to get away with as much as they now do. Was it Jefferson (I'm feeling to lazy right now to look it up) that said that the tree of liberty needs to be watered, from time to time, with the blood of tyrants? I think the tree is long overdue for such a watering, don't you?
 

You got that right, the tea tax was only 6%.

The municipality where I live was voted down 3 times because the citizens did not want to pay a 1% tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…