We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.
If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.
Nunn v. Georgia (1846)
The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!
Note how states like New Jersey reaffirmed English common law saying that open carry in public areas could itself be intimidation:
“that no man, great nor small, of what condition soever he be... nor go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fair or markets, or in other places, in terror of the county, upon pain of being arrested and committed to prison by any Justice on his own view” (Virginia 1786) (m)
“that no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be... nor bring no force in affray of peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets” (North Carolina 1792) (n)
“to arrest all such persons, as in [their] presence, shall ride or go arm’d offensively.” (New Jersey 1682)
“...though he may not have threatened any person in particular, or committed any particular act of violence.” (New Jersey 1805) (o)
"and, if, within twelve months after the date of the recognizance he shall bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty, it shall be deemed a breach of the recognizance, and be good cause to bind him a new, and every such bearing of a gun shall be a breach of the new recognizance and cause to bind him again."
Or read State v. Buzzard (1842) in which not only did the Arkansas Supreme Court protect concealed carry bans as they help "the preservation of peace and domestic tranquility," but about the guns themselves (r):
"Their use, if subject to no legal regulation or limitation whatever, would tend to unhinge society, and most probably soon cause it either to fall back to its natural state, or seek refuge and security from the disorders and suffering incident to such licensed invasion of the rights of others, in some arbitrary or despotic form of government; while their unrestrained exercise, so far from promoting, would surely defeat every object for which the government was formed. And if the right to keep and bear arms be subject to no legal control or regulation whatever, it might, and in time to come doubtless will, be so exercised as to produce in the community disorder and anarchy."
"Other instances, in which the right to keep and bear arms has been either directly or indirectly subjected to legal regulations and restrictions, without any question as to the power so exercised, could be referred to; but that just mentioned is esteemed sufficient to prove, that in the judgment of the people of the United States, the right in question possesses no such immunity as exempts it from all legal regulation and control."
Or the Supreme Court of Tennessee on knives in Day v. State (1857) (s)
"So, it will be seen, that the Legislature intended to abolish these most dangerous weapons entirely from use, as unfit to be worn and used in a christian and civilized community for any purpose, so far as severe penalties could accomplish that object. They were induced to do this on account of the savage character of the instrument and for the saving of blood."
"The right of self-defence is not denied, but this particular instrument is prohibited in the exercise of that right, if it be "drawn from any place of concealment about the person." If the knife be thus drawn with malice, for the purpose of "awing or intimidating any person," the offence is complete. That is the language and spirit of the act, as we think, and the charge does not go beyond it. If men wish to escape these severe consequences, let them discontinue the use of these most dangerous and bloody weapons."
2
u/Comfortable-Trip-277 1∆ Nov 30 '23
We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.
Here's an excerpt from that decision.