Legal rights aren't legal rights because you say so.
Nope, it's an absurdity, just like the last several times you sourcelessly asserted it.
Nope, it's because the legislation makes it clear that they do not have an actual "right" to a firearm. If I specifically tell you that you "may be permitted" to do something, there is no way you can construe that you have a right to do it.
Nope, it's an absurdity, just like the last several times you sourcelessly asserted it.
Nope. Wrong again.
But it is an absurdity that you you still can't answer a very simple question.
Even if they had been able to obtain a license on behalf of the slave ( which could only be applied for by the slave's owner ), did not the owner still have the right to confiscate the slave's firearm if he choose to do so...? Yes, or no...?
All the *sources* in the world don't mean squat if they don't even enable you to give a "yes" or "no" answer to a very simple question.