Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Who are the Militia? [View all]jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excop: Gee, I guess the fact That Scalia cited this exact case in Dist. of Columbia v. Heller means that you're wrong, again.
I think you have as much depth in this as a sophomore high school student, I'm not concerned that you think I'm wrong. Scalia could've cited hundreds of lesser court cases, cherry picked out of context to magically create the 'crystal clear an individual right' illusion.
But since you seem to think it's some 'ace in the hole' you've got there, amicus curiae for the militia side in the emerson case ALSO cited this texas case. Howzat grabya student?
{see English v. State, 35 Tex. (1872)} http://www.potowmack.org/yass.html
Any other deuces you got up your sleeves thinking they're aces?
excop: The furthermore comment means that in addition to the U.S. Constitution, there was a provision in the Texas Constitution that also covered the issue.
How many times do you need be informed that state rkbas after the early 1800's can not (necessarily) be considered applicable to the intent of the 2ndA? Some states morphed into individual interpretations & rkbas, certainly. Even prior to 1791 they should be considered contributorily.
Here's a Ga Superior Ct ruling, 1874: Upon its very front, as we have said, the object of the clause is declared to be to secure to the state a well regulated militia. Has this declaration no significance? Is the clause to be interpreted without reference to it? On the contrary, by the well settled rules for the interpretation of laws, as well as by the dictates of common sense, the object and intent of the law is the prime key to its meaning. A well regulated militia may fairly mean--"the arms-bearing population of the state, organized under the law, in possession of weapons for defending the state, and accustomed to their use." The constitution declares that as such a militia is necessary to the existence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To effect this end, the right to have arms would seem to be absolute, since without this right, it would not be possible to attain the end contemplated, to-wit: an armed militia, organized and ready for the public exigencies. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/state/140st.htm
same Ga court: It is insisted that the act .. is an infringement of the right of citizens of this state as guaranteed by the constitution of the {US} and of this state. It is now well settled that the amendments to the constitution of the {US}, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the {US}. therefore, if this act be unconstitutional it must be because it is in conflict with our state constitution.
"No person in said state shall be permitted or allowed to carry about his or her person any dirk, Bowie-knife, pistol or revolver, or any kind of deadly weapon, to any court of justice of any election ground or precinct, or any place of public worship, or any other public gathering in this state, except to militia muster grounds.
..the language of the constitution of this state, as well as that of the {US}, guarantees only the right to keep and bear the "arms" necessary for a militiaman. It is to secure the existence of a well regulated militia; that, by the express words of the clause, was the object of it.." The "arms bearing" part of a people, were its men fit for service on the field of battle. That country was "armed" that had an army ready for fight.