Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
"It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
Yep, in 1857, the Dred Scott decision clearly said that people could keep & carry arms "wherever they went", -- exactly as per the 2nd, and despite any State 'laws' to the Contrary.
That pesky quote destroys the idiotic majority rule position you boyos advocate.
The quote clearly says to the extent that a state offers it's own citizens.
Apparently you imagine the underlined portion on speech authorizes restrictions on carrying arms? -- Weird & wishful thinking robbie.
Of course. Why would it be excluded?
By 1857, states were already restricting the carrying of concealed arms. And these state laws were found to be constitutional.
The National Firearms Act of 1934 infringed just a little, wouldn't you say?
Previously, you've defended the NFA of '34 as an authorized use of Commerce clause power. -- Now you admit it's an infringement in order to justify earlier ones:
Plus, numerous states and cities had laws against the carrying of concealed weapons in the 1800's.
They had 'laws', - repugnant infringements on the right to carry, -- and most still do - just as you democrats like it.
>>>The National Firearms Act of 1934 infringed just a little, wouldn't you say?<<<
Only a little. This was the first infringement by the Federal Government (the proverbial "foot in the door"); but it was not until the Gun Control Act of 1968 that there was any noticable infrigement.
Of course. Why would it be excluded?
Because the right to carry arms "shall not be infringed".
By 1857, states were already restricting the carrying of concealed arms. And these state laws were found to be constitutional.
Some court opinions found so, some didn't. -- We were about to fight a civil war about such issues paulsen. -- The constitutional side won, and passed the 14th to stop States from infringing, -- yet you democrats still fight on. -- Why is that?
What drives you to hate liberty so?
>>>Pennsylvania passed its Test Act in 1777 which barred ownership of firearms by anyone who had not taken a loyalty oath to the state. That covered about 40% of the white male population. Pesky old historical facts.<<<
What was our nation called in 1777? Was it 'England'? I forget.
For the record, the Test Act and its companion, the Militia Act of 1777 was intended primarily to compel certain religious groups in Pennsylvania to take up arms and fight in the revolution for the colonists. One of those religious groups, the Mennonites, included some of my ancestors.
>>>As I said, the U.S. Supreme Court never got that far.<<<
If the court had taken a close look at the validity of Miller's claim that he was in the militia, hopefully they would have read and Federalist Paper #46 where Madison estimated the militia size in that day to be approximately half-million citizens. A quick comparison with the population of that day (a little over 3 million) will reveal that Madison was referring to every man of militia age (over 17) capable of bearing arms.
No.
The state of Pennsylvania, like a number of the states which had declared their independence from Britain and united under the Articles of Confederation in 1777, enacted Test Acts.
For the record, the Test Act and its companion, the Militia Act of 1777 was intended primarily to compel certain religious groups in Pennsylvania to take up arms and fight in the revolution for the colonists.
And disarmed those who refused to take an oath loyalty to the government of the state of Pennsylvania.
You were aware that our states pre-existed the United States? Or did you "forget"?
Stop begging the question. Produce the alleged claim.
Individuals choose whether or not to be members of the group.
This is your lamest collectivist rant to date.
I take it back about that being your lamest collectivist post. Now you're citing the 9th circuit. I would think you would take caution in doing such, given their reputation for liberal activism.
The state of Georgia passed its law against concealable weapons even earlier, in 1837.
The schools offer drivers' education, why not teach students how to handle a gun. Everyone who is eligible to own a gun should buy one and learn how to use it.
A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless--it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void.
Keep twisting little troll...
They didn't. They never go that far.
That wasn't the issue facing the U.S. Supreme Court. The National Firearms Act of 1934 (which taxed Miller's shotgun) was being challenged as violating the second amendment. The question before the U.S. Supreme Court was if the weapon in question was used by the state Militia. They remanded it back to the District Court to make that determination.
"will reveal that Madison was referring to every man of militia age (over 17) capable of bearing arms."
Instead of reading Federalist Paper #46, the U.S. Supreme Court would have read The National Defense Act of 1916 which "transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term "National Guard" mandatory."
No, you have it backwards. The Nunn decision explicitly upheld bans on concealable weapons.
>>>And disarmed those who refused to take an oath loyalty to the government of the state of Pennsylvania.<<<
Actually they lost all rights, not just the RKBA. Anyway, war is hell. Much later, during World War II (er, after we became the United States) Roosevelt threw the Japanese into internment camps. I assume they were also denied the right to keep and bear arms, but that is only an assumption.
>>>You were aware that our states pre-existed the United States?<<<
Duh...
>>>Stop begging the question. Produce the alleged claim.<<<
You are not making any sense. Can you please clarify your statement?
>>>The state of Georgia passed its law against concealable weapons even earlier, in 1837.<<<
So, you could keep and bear arms, but you must bear them openly. I get it.
Thanks for the non sequitur.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.