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
More lies. Typical from you...
Misquotation. Check.
Date prior to Bill of Rights being ratified. Check.
No claim that state restrictions were barred. Check.
Lie. Check.
Lie. Check.
3 for 3.
Inserted text.
Bill of Rights ratified in 1791, not 1789.
No quote of your imaginary assertion.
Fail. Fail. Fail.
Your dream of more centralized government, additional rule from the bench and destruction of original intent finds a weak advocate in you.
Lie.
Lie.
Yep. Yer' an epic fail...
If it weren’t for your willful ignorance and your deliberate dishonesty, you would have to stand mute.
The Constitution will survive long after your and the rest of the leftists have gone to dust.
You did no such thing. You just validated my argument, yet again.
Good lord, you can't even read what is right in front of you :
"Provided nevertheless, That every free negroe, mulattoe, or Indian, being a house keeper, may be permitted to keep one gun, powder, and shot
The words, "may be permitted" merely confer permission. It in no way establishes a "right". Talk to any lawyer, judge or legal scholar about that terminology.
What's more, the language doesn't even say, "shall be permitted...". Nope. It specifically says, "may be permitted...". The statute does not require that permission be granted or retained on behalf of anyone.
And every single magistrate in Kentucky fully understood this fact. The magistrates had full discretionary power when came to issuing permits. They had the right, as magistrates, to refuse a permit to any free black individual, indian or slave.
And again, the slave owner he to file the application on the slave's behalf. They slave couldn't do it for himself. And if the owner wasn't really sure if the slave could be trusted with a gun in public, he could refuse to file for a permit, no matter how much the slave thought he deserved one.
Yet, even if the slave was awarded a permit, the owner still had the right to confiscate the firearm from his slave anytime he chose to do so.
Do you think that merely repeating your sourceless falsehood enough times will make it true?
Please produce a source (for once) supporting your assertion that a right expressly granted by law isn't really a right. Preferably something other than merely your own insistence or that of your unnamed and imaginary "lawyer."
Nope, everything I said was the truth. Even you realize that you've that you've lost the argument. The words, "...may be permitted..." bestow permission. They do not establish an actual right.
Here is how the folks in Kentucky establish an actual right to arms :
"That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
No "may be permitted" there.
Please produce a source (for once) supporting your assertion that a right expressly granted by law isn't really a right. Preferably something other than merely your own insistence or that of your unnamed and imaginary "lawyer."
Oh, I can do something much better.
If a slave *really* possessed a personal "right" to arms, as you so adamantly insist, well, then, what steps was a slave supposed to take, for example, if his owner refused to file an application for a firearms permit...?
The slave really believed that he needed a gun permit so that he could use a a firearm when he traveled. He believed he needed protection from all sorts of unsavory types. Thus, the owner is clearly *violating* the rights of the slave.
What steps was the slave supposed to take, to remedy his situation, and have his "rights" restored...?
Well...??
Please, tell us, what specific steps was the slave actually supposed to take to restore his personal "right" to arms...?
You've parroted that repeatedly, hoping that mere repetition could act as a substitute for substantiation. Those who were granted the permit received the legal right to keep and use guns, sourcelessly squirm as you will.
If a slave *really* possessed a personal "right" to arms, as you so adamantly insist
As the statute expressly stated:
"XIX. Provided nevertheless, That every free negroe, mulattoe, or Indian, being a house keeper, may be permitted to keep one gun, powder, and shot: And all negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, bond or free, living at any frontier plantation, may be permitted to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive, or defensive, by licence, from a justice of peace, of the county wherein such plantations lie, to be obtained upon the application of free negroes, mulattoes, or Indians, or of the owners of such as are slaves."Unfortunately for you, words have meanings.
LICENSE, contracts. A right given by some competent authority to do an act, which without such authority would be illegal. The instrument or writing which secures this right, is also called a license. Vide Ayl. Parerg, 353; 15 Vin. Ab. 92; Ang. Wat. Co. 61, 85.Maybe it would help if you cried.Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition
This from the guy who can't read plain English. That's rich...
You can read this:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -Tench Coxe, Freeman’s Journal, 20 Feb 1778
And still think that those who wrote and passed the BoR meant anything other than our "Right to Keep and Bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as part of the "Supreme law of the Land" "the Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding". In your view, we do not have that unalienable Right. States, Counties, municipalities, home owners associations... In your view, ANY of them can remove that right from you without your consent or with you having committed an actual crime.
In the correct, historical view, those Rights are to be held inviolate. By ANY governing agency in the US. Fed Gov on down.
And this is a "Leftist" view in your opinion?
Stop posting from your garage. At least turn your car off first and open a door.
Nice foot shot. Thanks.
The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments...
This is why the cool kids pick on you.
The Second Amendment isn't a source of power.
Thanks for the pathetic non sequitur.
Stop paying your taxes and tell that to the armed government agents who come to arrest you...
The IRS gets its powers from the 16th Amendment, not the 2nd Amendment.
Have you ever actually read the Constitution?
Poor Roscoe, sets up a strawman and forgets where he puts it...
Nope, you were “set up” by your own ignorance.
It's the absolute truth. The magistrate was not required to issue a permit/license to anyone if he didn't want to. Period. The statute specifically said, "may be permitted". The magistrate was given discretion under the law. It didn't say, "shall be permitted", or "will be permitted". Nope. And if an indian, free black, or slave was denied their licence, there was little they could actually do.
Unfortunately for you, words have meanings.
Words can have more than one particular meaning. And the very purpose of the particular license we are discussing is spelled out in the statute : to grant permission ( "may be permitted...". ).
Maybe it would help if you cried.
Nope.
But would help if you at least tried to answer my questions.
A magistrate refuses to issue you a license for firearms...? What do you actually do...?? You need use of a firearm. Well...??
You're a slave. Your owner refuses to issue file an application for a firearm license. You still want use of a firearm. Your so-called "rights" are apparently being violated. What do you actually do...??
Every time I ask you what one of these individuals was supposed to do when they were being prevented from exercising their so-called "rights", you just draw a blank, and refuse to answer.
Typical trolling from Roscoe...
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.