Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments
That’s why slaves had guns, huh?
Your nits about Rawle's quote from the very first publication used to teach law students about our new form of government is idiocy in the highest considering it backs up everything else Mason, Madison, Jefferson, et al are saying.
Also, your further using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM from an off topic court case is hardly "spanking" anything.
Go beg...
Really? So all those .50 cal bans, AW bans, handgun bans, and ZERO firearms bans like in NYC and New Jersey are what? Phantoms?
You are delusional...
The 1st, 2d and 10th are distinctly different from the other Bill of Rights.
The 1st is the only one that says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. There is no way it can be interpreted as applying to the states ... unless via the 14th.
The 2d and 10th are the ONLY bill of rights that specifically include the capitalized word State and clearly apply to the state as well as the Feds.
Slaves, by definition, do not possess the rights that free individuals do. They were viewed as property.
Without it, those Rights would have applied to every Citizen equally. The Civil Rights movement would have been entirely unnecessary.
Yep. They weren’t entirely keen on the idea of freed slaves having a bona fide right to guns.
What does your imaginary definition say about state gun laws and slaves?
Some states allowed slaves to have weapons, others prohibited it.
Restrictions on SOME arms. Like your Nunn decision's assertion that concealable weapons may be banned.
Another nice foot shot.
Select groups of slaves that had served in the military were allowed, with the permission of their CO's, to keep a firearm that they had used. Needless to say, slave/plantation owners really weren't enamored with this idea and then steps were taken to restrict slaves from becoming actual soldiers, and even prevent slaves that had served from re-enlisting.
Select groups of slaves were also allowed to use a firearm for hunting food for themselves. But the slave/plantation owner ultimately held the right to repossess the firearm if he decided that it was necessary.
Being allowed, under a particular set of circumstances, do something is not the same thing as having an actual right to do something.
And where's that in the imaginary "definition" you tried to lie into existence?
So in the end, you are actually talking about a relatively small group of individuals. And even there, the slave owners ultimately had the right to confiscate the firearm if they deemed it to be necessary.
And, again, steps were then taken over time to restrict slaves from serving and even re-enlisting.
Bzzzzt. Time to refute you again.
The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations "to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive."http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.racism.html
Sourceless falsehoods and imaginary dictionary definitions. Unbelievably lame.
More nonsense from you. Typical. Actually, you wind up validating my argument.
Even within the context of the state of Kentucky, whites had a right to arms recognized by the state Constitution. Slaves did not. Thus even within the context of the state, there were two different classes of individuals : whites and slaves ( or even freed slaves ). Two different types of laws : Constitutional and statutory. They passed the KCA of 1798 because the latter group did not possess the actual right to arms. And just as the privilege was granted via the legislation, it could just as easily be revoked.
They same could not be said about rights of white residents in Kentucky with regards to gun ownership.
Let's compare your dishonesty with the facts:
The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations "to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive."
1. Slaves had the right to bear arms under the law.
2. That right had NOTHING to do with prior military service, contrary to your earlier sourceless lie. (I didn't see a retraction. No surprise there.)
Thus even within the context of the state, there were two different classes of individuals : whites and slaves ( or even freed slaves
It says "free blacks", not "freed slaves", your dishonest revisionism notwithstanding.
They passed the KCA of 1798 because the latter group did not possess the actual right to arms.
The KCA had nothing to do with the United States Constitution or the Second Amendment, your dancing notwithstanding.
Sourceless assertions, imaginary "definitions" and blatant dishonesty. Every post.
Amazing that you'd come back to this after all this time. Trying to sneak in a last word? Pathetic...
States aren't the central government, no matter how much you hate federalism.
*yawn*
Dreaming of judicial legislation, the love of all you leftists?
Lame.
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.