Interesting historical tidbit

[Shamash]

I just came across the "Property Requisition Act, P.L. 274, 55 Stat. 742" from 1941:

http://legisworks.org/congress/77/publaw-274.pdf

It is an act giving the President temporary authority to requisition property for the defense of the United States. With a notable exception:

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed to: 1) authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport, 2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms.

While it does not explicitly mention the 2nd Amendment, the use of "infringe", "individual" and "keep and bear arms" makes it pretty clear they had the 2nd in mind when writing it.

It would seem that it was the sense of Congress and the President in 1941 that gun ownership was a right. I suspect there are other references throughout the legislative record saying the same thing. We focus far too often on court rulings, but if a law is passed and not contested or used as a defense, you will not find things like the above in the judicial records.

[GGJohn]

1. Very interesting.

This is why I love DU, learn something new every day.

[Eleanors38]

2. Both FDR and Eleanor had their own.

[Shamash]

3. Quite true

I have a picture of Eleanor with a pistol, posing next to a substandard backdrop dangerously close to where innocent bystanders might be. At least if you judge things by DU standards:

50 acres of woods is the perfect place to find kids and dogs playing around.

[virginia mountainman]

6. Yep...DU would be in an uproar if the first lady did this..

?w=590&h=479

But many other DEMOCRATS would cheer her on! And upon closer inspection, she appears to be a good shot.

[ileus]

4. What kind of dunce would try and claim it's not a right of an individual?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Since it is an Act it was either A) passed by Congress and signed by the President or B)

Passed by Congress and Congress overrode a presidential veto with a supermajority.

Either way that makes all 3 branches of government in the modern US affirming the individual right.

[jimmy the one]

7. another sham, from shamash

shamash: While it does not explicitly mention the 2nd Amendment, the use of "infringe", "individual" and "keep and bear arms" makes it pretty clear they had the 2nd in mind when writing it.

This is hard to believe. Shamash starts this OP on june 11, contending the 'property requisition act' of 1941 contends an individual rkba by its wording, then the very next day jun12 shamash started an OP about state provisions for rkba.

When 1941 congress wrote the bill, the wording was referring back to those very state rkba provisions which shamash referenced on june 12!!!!:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives.. Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed-
(1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport (and the possession of which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law),
(2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms..

.. if they had that 'right'. This bill in early 1941 when US was gearing up, was to prevent state fears that their 'individual' right to keep arms could be superceded by the president requisitioning their guns (gun paranoia existed then too): (excerpted) whenever the President, during the national emergency declared by the President on May 27, 1941 .. determines that (1) the use of any military or naval equipment, supplies, or munitions, or component parts thereof, or machinery, tools, or materials necessary for the manufacture, servicing, or operation of such equipment, supplies, or munitions is needed for the defense of {US}; (2) such need is immediate and impending and such as will not admit of delay or resort to any other source of supply .. have been exhausted, he is authorized to requisition such property upon the payment of fair and just compensation for such property to be determined as hereinafter provided, and to dispose of such property in such manner as he may determine is necessary..

The 2ndA could in itself have PREVENTED congress from requisitioning firearms. How could shamash overlook that the bill was NOT referring to the 2nd amendment? since several states in 1941 still retained 'common defense' rkba provisions? The 2nd amendment in 1941 was generally looked upon as a militia centric via the 1939 Miller decision by the supreme court.
The authors of the 1941 bill were referring back to those states which indeed granted individual rkba protections - PRIOR to 1941, but not all states did:

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. (1868.)
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
South Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. .. (enacted 1895).
1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. (enacted 1870).
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing arm.. (1776)
Florida: 1838: the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.
1868: The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State.
1885: The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

I also observe the reoccurence of the 'Bedazzled Syndrome', aka the deaf dumb & blind syndrome, aka hear no see no speak no evil phenomenon, which afflicts gun zealots when they first see something new which supports their 2nd amendment mythology. Shamash posted something which on first glance supported an individual rkba via 2ndA, but which on further scrutiny does not. Well I know that most all posting gun enthusiasts on this forum were aware of the state rkba provisions, yet not one challenged shamash on his faulty premise, so eager were they to believe the hypnotic misconception their hypnotist shamash had put them under.

[Shamash]

8. Do I sense an attack of the invisible (to me) crap-throwing monkey? n/t

[GGJohn]

9. Yeah, he's posting his usual nonsensical word salad

that needs an interpreter to figure out what he's saying, and when one finally figures it out, he's usually dead wrong.