Saturday, January 18, 2014

What you can do with bear arms

If we are going to be silly buggers about it: bear arms can play a harp:



I have quoted from Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) in other places, but it makes it clear that the terms "bear arms" means in a military context--Despite what "Fat Tony Scalia" says:
"We think there is a manifest distinction. In the nature of things, if they were not allowed to bear arms openly, they could not bear them in their defence of the state at all. To bear arms in defence of the state is to employ them in war, as arms are usually employed by civilized nations. The arms, consisting of swords, muskets, rifles, etc., must necessarily be borne openly; so that a prohibition to bear them openly would be a denial of the right altogether. And, as in their constitution the right to bear arms in defence of themselves is coupled with the right to bear them in defence of the state, we must understand the expressions as meaning the same thing, and as relating to public, and not private, to the common, and not the individual, defence.
But a prohibition to wear a spear concealed in a cane would in no degree circumscribe the right to bear arms in the defence of the state; for this weapon could in no degree contribute to its defence, and would be worse than useless in an army. And, if, as is above suggested, the wearing arms in defence of the citizens is taken to mean the common defence, the same observations apply.
To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.
In the case of Simpson v. The State, 5 Yerg. 356, Judge White, in delivering the opinion of the court, makes use of the general expression that, " by this clause in the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens in the state to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind and nature."

24 comments:

  1. Laci, you repeatedly say that Heller and McDonald were bad decisions, implying that you recognize the possibility of the court getting something wrong. If that's the case, then these rulings that you love to quote could also be wrong.

    On the other hand, if you insist that the court is infallible, then Heller and McDonald are the rulings in force, and you must accept that we have an individual right to own firearms. We also have a right to carry, given the Seventh Circuit's ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Second Amendment is irrelevant to the right to bear arms. Substantive due process guarantees a fundamental Right to Privacy which protects all persons against the voyeur of the state. As all humans have an inalienable right to defend their persons against threats of an exerted physical force (with some extensions and limitations applying in accordance with the circumstances of any given case), which is manifest to the general rights of man specifically listed in the constitution, it is implicit that persons ought to have access to the means (small arms) which are manifest to the effective and intelligent defense of oneself.

    Even if you are correct in your notions that you have concocted after much obsession on the second article of amendment to the federal constitution, a fundamental right to arms is retained by the people, and it is an crime against humanity to deny the people this Individual right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Man has been defending himself without guns for eons. A right to a gun is not the same as a right to self defense. You refuse to separate the two, but that's your misunderstanding of law. "A crime against humanity." That kind of statement is why even though an overwhelming majority of Americans believe in a right to own a gun, they reject extremist , because they know you cannot pass law through extremism.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you agree that we have a right to self-defense, why do you reject a right to an effective tool to exercise that right?

      Delete
    2. In that case, you implicitly concede that you are a troll.

      In such case, have some damn class and get better at trolling.

      Delete
    3. Listen to these lying criminal cowardly assholes. I admit they have a right to own guns and they call me a troll. A troll is someone who only comments to stir up bullshit and refuses to respond and engage in the issue. Noe review the comment sections and see who is refusing to respond, or engage. That's right it's the asshole, criminal, lying gun loones. These guys.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, you never admitted that we have a right to own guns. You said an overwhelming majority of Americans hold that view.

      Delete
    5. You asked:

      Greg Camp January 19, 2014 at 3:39 AM

      If you agree that we have a right to self-defense, why do you reject a right to an effective tool to exercise that right?

      I responded:

      Anonymous January 19, 2014 at 5:16 AM

      I don't.

      Don't know where you got the rest of your lie from.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous, when you don't use a distinctive name, it makes you indistinguishable from all the other anonymous commenters. When you respond with, I don't, to a question that had two parts, it isn't clear which part you disagree with. And when you toss around the word, lie, you show yourself to be just another incarnation of the trolling arseholes who are disrupting the conversation here.

      Delete
    7. "why do you reject a right to an effective tool to exercise that right?"

      Only one question there.
      The lie was insinuating (stating) I reject your right to a tool. Since I never said that, it is a lie by you.
      I responded "I don't" to clarify your statement (question) was untrue.
      Like some of the others, I could have been nastier, but decided not to. Your nasty reply has changed my mind. You have made another enemy. It seems that's what you are best at. No wonder they call you the site lying criminal coward. Yes, I got that from Steve.

      Delete
    8. Since your name game is truly a straw man why don't you name me. It is insignificant compared to what is said, but if it is so important to you, then by all means, name me.

      Delete
    9. how about Steve? :p

      Delete
    10. You guys were real cute about naming me after a guy you had problems with. Nice name game. So my name for you liars is lying criminal cowards. I forgot, asshole lying criminal cowards.
      Again today, we see you have been lying about the numbers of suicides compared to the total number of gun shot deaths. No surprise, just another documented lie by you asshole criminal lying cowards.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous, my question had two parts:

      1. If you agree that we have a right to self-defense

      2. why do you reject a right to an effective tool

      You answered, "I don't."

      Delete
    12. There's no need for you anonymous commenters to be honest about your names. We already have good reason to believe that there's only one of you.

      And Steve, if you read for comprehension, you'll see that the number of gunshot deaths that are suicides is about two-thirds.

      Delete
    13. I'm sorry, I thought you were an intelligent person; I already answered the first part of your question, the "I don't" was the answer to the second part of your question. Oh, I already explained that. Of course you lied when you said I rejected your right to a tool, because I don't.

      Delete
    14. My comprehension is fine asshole lying criminal coward.
      14 studies say you are wrong.
      Thanks for proving you are a paranoid liar, by stating that many people are one. You do that with EN, Lacy4, and other commentators.
      It seems the dozen of commentators who disagree with you are only one person. That's quite an ego for you guys to think only one person disagrees with you. Oh, that's right it's paranoia and ego.

      Delete
    15. So I did actually teach Steve that "asshole" is one word. The other guy who sounds just like you said he always spelled it right, but here we see by miraculous coincidence that Steve dropped the space at the same time the new guy came around using the correct spelling. What are the odds?

      Delete
    16. The odds are good that you are delusional since you think many people are one person. Next lie.

      Delete
  4. "Despite what "Fat Tony Scalia" says"

    Making a comment regarding a person's appearance does nothing to sell your position and actually distracts from it. The suggestion being that someone's appearance is more important than what he stands for.
    To be honest, there's a few big names, (pun intended) who, using your logic would seem predisposed to being on the pro-gun side of the aisle.
    I always thought "progressives" were supposed to look beyond appearance? Or as someone who said it much better than I,

    "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Happy MLK Jr. weekend Sarge. God bless you and your family.

      Delete
  5. So they way I read that is that the state could regulate the carrying of some out of date weapons or weapons that would have limited capability to fight a war, but any modern weapon of warfare should not be regulated since "The arms, consisting of swords, muskets, rifles, etc., must necessarily be borne openly; so that a prohibition to bear them openly would be a denial of the right altogether." The way I read this is that every citizen has the right to openly carry a standard issue M-4 or similar combat rifle as part of their right to bear arms of a military style and capability.

    As noted: "by this clause in the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens in the state to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind and nature."" Seems to imply again that all free citizens (not necessarily national guard troops or people in the army) should be free to carry military grade equipment openly as their right to keep and bear arms states.

    ReplyDelete