Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: New Jersey first to ratify Bill of Rights: 20 Nov 1789

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775

    New Jersey first to ratify Bill of Rights: 20 Nov 1789

    I e-subscribe to "This Day In History." Today's entry, brought to you by Hyundai, had this as one of their side links:


    November 20, 1789

    New Jersey ratifies the Bill of Rights
    On this day in 1789, New Jersey ratifies the Bill of Rights, becoming the first state to do so. New Jersey’s action was a first step toward making the first 10 amendments to the Constitution law and completing the revolutionary reforms begun by the Declaration of Independence.

    The Anti-Federalist critics of the U.S. Constitution were afraid that a too-strong federal government would become just another sort of the monarchical regime from which they had recently been freed. They believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government by outlining its rights but failing to delineate the rights of the individuals living under it. Before the Massachusetts ratifying convention would accept the Constitution, then, which they finally did in February 1788, the document’s Federalist supporters had to promise to create a Bill of Rights to be amended to the Constitution immediately upon the creation of a new government under the document. This helped to assuage the Anti-Federalists’ concerns.

    As promised, the newly elected Congress drafted the Bill of Rights on December 25, 1789. Drafted by James Madison and loosely based on Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, the first 10 amendments give the following rights to all United States citizens:

    1. Freedom of religion, speech and assembly
    2. Right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well-regulated militia
    3. No forcible quartering of soldiers during peacetime
    4. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
    5. Right to a grand jury for capital crimes and due process. Protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination and public confiscation of private property without "just compensation"
    6. Right to "speedy and public" trial by jury and a competent defense
    7. Right to trial by jury for monetary cases above $20
    8. Protection against "excessive" bail or fines and "cruel and unusual" punishments
    9. Rights not enumerated are "retained by the people"
    10. Rights not given to the federal government or prohibited the state governments by the Constitution, "are reserved to the States... or to the people"
    Any comments?

    On other matters of correction on some of their articles, I could not locate an "editor" or anyone to contact, so I just sent them to webmaster .at. history dot com with a "Please forward to editor," or something like that in the subject line. Never got a response on any of my comments --suggestions, please?

    Source:

    http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...d=1715_T1_Url4

  2. #2
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-31-08
    Location
    Miami Beach,Florida
    Posts
    12,834
    Thank you 230RN and Hyundai!
    Who woulda known?
    Chuck Schumer must have been their consultant.

  3. #3
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-04-08
    Location
    eastern Massachusetts
    Posts
    8,699
    I'm sure the only reason that NJ ratified the BOR is that no one had yet invented that RIDICULOUS notion that rights actually apply to individuals, rather than groups. Groups like the National Guard.

    It's a pity to see that, even after DC v Heller, the author says that the PURPOSE of 2A is "a well-regulated militia." The purpose is to ensure that all US citizens can exercise, without infringement, their natural right to keep and bear arms.
    Last edited by Loosedhorse; November 20th, 2008 at 07:46 PM.

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-04-05
    Location
    Nazi Jerky
    Posts
    398
    New Jersey first to ratify Bill of Rights: 20 Nov 1789

    And it's been downhill here in Nazi Jerky ever since.....

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775
    Whoa, whoa, hold it. New Jersey did not ratify the BOR as described above. That description is the writing or "translation" of the article writer.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-05-04
    Posts
    353
    Any way you slice it, NJ is a PIT when it comes to 2A rights.
    Charter member PWU (Pud Whackers Unanimous!)

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-31-08
    Location
    Miami Beach,Florida
    Posts
    12,834
    Whoa, whoa, hold it. New Jersey did not ratify the BOR as described above. That description is the writing or "translation" of the article writer.
    That is certainly correct.We can't blame 1789 New Jersey for this disgrace.That why I sarcastically suggested Schumer must have been the consultant in writing the distorted Amendment up.

  8. #8
    Any way you slice it, NJ is a PIT when it comes to 2A rights.
    Uh...and almost everything else, too.

    Seriously, I can think of few states that are more pointless and unappealing in general.
    ▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄ ПOНК РОК ▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀▄▀

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-01-04
    Posts
    1,048
    Naha man...NJ is the 'Garden State'.

    salty

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-30-03
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    135
    "Any way you slice it, NJ is a PIT when it comes to 2A rights."


    Buck,
    NJ ain't no garden that's for sure but, surprisingly enough, they are pretty good on carrying handguns. Admittedly, CCW permits are issued almost exclusively to the rich and powerful but they are good anywhere in the state. The only exception is school property. Admittedly, there is no valid or even rational reason for this but so many other states have such long lists of places where a CCW permit isn't valid that it pretty much negates the value of the permit anyway. Surprisingly, the only state better than NJ in this regard is NY, which I understand has no restrictions at all.

    In researching other state's laws I see that we are pretty unique with having only 1 "no carry" zone. Other states prohibit carry at many places including sporting events, hospitals, banks, police stations, parks, parades, liquor stores, bars, public meetings, highway rest areas, day care centers, airports, public transportation (buses, trains), etc.

    There was a thread here a while ago where a newbie documented his first day of carry and he had to take the gun off and leave it in his car a half dozen times when he entered various establishments where his permit wasn't valid. This is absurd. If you don't have a car you have to leave your gun home.

    We all know that there is no valid reason for any of these restrictions and I consider them to be harassment but its nice to know that NJ did at least one thing (almost) right.

  11. #11
    I think it qualifies as the definition of irony.

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-10-08
    Posts
    131
    Other states prohibit carry at many places including sporting events, hospitals, banks, police stations, parks, parades, liquor stores, bars, public meetings, highway rest areas, day care centers, airports, public transportation (buses, trains), etc.
    I'm not sure a number of those on the list are banned anywhere. I think a lot of states have laws stating you can't carry where it is posted, and then where alcohol is served, and a number of government builidings.

  13. #13
    Member  
    Join Date
    08-04-08
    Location
    eastern Massachusetts
    Posts
    8,699
    In researching other state's laws I see that we are pretty unique with having only 1 "no carry" zone.
    Nope. MA state law prohibits carry "in any building or on the grounds of any elementary or secondary school, college or university without the written authorization" from the school. And that's it.

    Churches, bars, etc. all okay. You have to be aware of local ordinances, as there is no state pre-emption of local ordinances. Occasionally I find statements that you can't carry here at town meetings, polling (voting) places, courthouses, police stations, etc. But I haven't found any statutes that confirm those prohibitions.

    Nor do I plan to test them. IANAL. No one likes surprises.

    Federal law covers federal courts, post offices, and other federal buildings.

    From the Boston Globe, Nov 10, 2006:
    In Massachusetts, 203,302 residents were licensed to carry concealed weapons as of August, according to the state Criminal History Systems Board. That's about one of every 23 residents among the 4.6 million who are at least 21 years old, the minimum age to obtain a license. But state law bars authorities from releasing the names of permit holders to "prevent individuals with devious motives from ascertaining who possesses firearms," according to a guide published by Secretary of State William F. Galvin.
    That's not so bad, is it?

    (I'll talk about the downsides of MA some other time...)

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,404
    2. Right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well-regulated militia
    I'm OK with that summary, even if it is a bit imprecise. If the right of the people's ability to keep and bear arms is restricted then the ability to raise a militia is also restricted. Put another way, in order to have a functional militia, the government may not restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

    This is where a lot of people read into the bill of rights what they want to hear. The ability of raising a militia depends on the freedom to keep arms, it's not the ability to keep arms is dependent on the freedom to raise a militia.

    Even the quote says "regulated militia" and not "regulated arms". I'm OK with a regulated militia, not so much with regulated arms.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  15. #15
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    03-12-03
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    917
    and now NJ loves stepping on it.
    Do not demand accomplishment from those with NO talent

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775
    I'm OK with that summary, even if it is a bit imprecise. If the right of the people's ability to keep and bear arms is restricted then the ability to raise a militia is also restricted. Put another way, in order to have a functional militia, the government may not restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
    So if there's no militia, there's no right to keep and bear arms?

  17. #17
    New Member  
    Join Date
    04-27-07
    Location
    San Antonio TX
    Posts
    19
    NJ ain't no garden that's for sure but, surprisingly enough, they are pretty good on carrying handguns. Admittedly, CCW permits are issued almost exclusively to the rich and powerful but they are good anywhere in the state. The only exception is school property. Admittedly, there is no valid or even rational reason for this but so many other states have such long lists of places where a CCW permit isn't valid that it pretty much negates the value of the permit anyway. Surprisingly, the only state better than NJ in this regard is NY, which I understand has no restrictions at all.
    Having no restrictions sounds great on paper, but if most ordinary citizens don't have the ability to actually get a CCW, then the lack of carry restrictions is useless for the most part.

  18. #18
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    07-03-07
    Location
    Linn County, Iowa
    Posts
    3,404
    I'm OK with that summary, even if it is a bit imprecise. If the right of the people's ability to keep and bear arms is restricted then the ability to raise a militia is also restricted. Put another way, in order to have a functional militia, the government may not restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
    So if there's no militia, there's no right to keep and bear arms?
    Nope, if our right to arms is denied then there is no militia.

    The militia consists of all able bodied persons within the USA. If those people do not have access to arms then we do not have a militia, and then we no longer have our free state secured.
    You can have free speech or you can have income taxes but you cannot have both.

  19. #19
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-27-06
    Posts
    7,775
    Okay, the way I read, "Put another way, in order to have a functional militia, the government may not restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms," it seems you're predicating the right to keep on bear arms on the necessity to have a militia.

    Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but that's the way your statement looks to me. I think the right to keep and bear arms is not predicated on anything, but is simply an individual immanent right.

    But that's just me.

    And that's why I boldfaced the editor's statement, "2. Right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of a well-regulated militia" in the original post. It's just plumb wrong.

    Terry, 230RN

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •