Re: The Sandman Re-Works Plain English for No Purpose

The Lone Weasel wrote:
Homespun Inc. wrote:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Grey Ghost wrote:
"The Lone Weasel" <loneweasel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1145929404.917570.49700@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
Homedunce said:


Gunsite is saying that a _genuine_ assault weapon meets that criteria--
and that the legal definition is just plain wrong.


The Lone Weasel said:

Legal definitions are terms of art. Terms of art are words or phrases
used in a definite or precise sense in some particular subject, as a
science or art; they're technical expressions with specialized
meanings, according to the OED.

If you intend to discuss weapons law it's your job to learn the terms
of art.

http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm

Get busy, fool.

OK doink.

ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or
uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a;
Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h.t.
2. The Constitution of the United States, Amendm. art. 2, declares, "that a
well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In
Kentucky, a statute " to prevent persons from wearing concealed arms," has
been declared to be unconstitutional...

"while in Indiana a similar statute has been holden valid and
constitutional.
3 Blackf. R. 229. Vide Story, Const. Sec. 1889, 1890 Amer. Citizen,
176; 1
Tuck. Black. App. 300 Rawle on Const. 125."

Which illustrates the differences in early state weapons rights, eh
Frank? As I've said many times the states have always enacted and
enforced weapons statutes under their power of internal police, and
since the PA Constitution of 1776 they had broadened the term of art
"arms" to include a personal weapons right, almost always along with a
right to bear arms in defense of the state.

[begin excerpt]

Constitution of Pennsylvania - September 28, 1776

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the
defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies
in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought
not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept
under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil
power.


[end excerpt]

Like that.

[begin excerpt]

MILITIA. The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens
called
forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel

invasion.

2. The Constitution of the United States provides on this subject
as
follows: Art. 1, s. 8, 14. Congress shall have power to provide for
calling
forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress
insurrections,
and repel invasions.

3.-15. to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the
militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the

appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia,

according to the discipline prescribed by congress.

4. Under the clauses of the constitution, the following points
have
been decided.
1. If congress had chosen, they might by law, have considered a
militia
man, called into the service of the United States, as being, from the
time
of such call, constructively in that service, though not actually so,
although he should not appear at the place of rendezvous. But they have
not
so considered him, in the acts of congress, till after his appearance
at the
place of rendezvous: previous to that, a fine was to be paid for the
delinquency in not obeying the call, which fine was deemed an
equivalent for
his services, and an atonement for disobedience.

5.-2. The militia belong to the states respectively, and are
subject,
both in their civil and military capacities, to the jurisdiction and
laws of
the state, except so far as these laws are controlled by acts of
congress,
constitutionally made.

6.-3. It is presumable the framers of the constitution
contemplated a
full exercise of all the powers of organizing, arming, and disciplining
the
militia; nevertheless, if congress had declined to exercise them, it
was
competent to the state governments respectively to do it. But congress
has
executed these powers as fully as was thought right, and covered the
whole
ground of their legislation by different laws, notwithstanding
important
provisions may have been omitted, or those enacted might be
beneficially
altered or enlarged.

7.-4. After this, the states cannot enact or enforce laws on the
same
subject. For although their laws may not be directly repugnant to those
of
congress, yet congress, having exercised their will upon the subject,
the
states cannot legislate upon it. If the law of the latter be the same,
it is
inoperative: if they differ, they must, in the nature of things, oppose
each
other, so far as they differ.

8.-5. Thus if an act of congress imposes a fine, and a state law
fine
and imprisonment for the same offence, though the latter is not
repugnant,
inasmuch as it agrees with the act of the congress, so far as the
latter
goes, and add another punishment, yet the wills of the two legislating
powers in relation to the subject are different, and cannot subsist
harmoniously together.

9.-6. The same legislating power may impose cumulative
punishments;
but not different legislating powers.

10.-7. Therefore, where the state governments have, by the
constitution, a concurrent power with the national government, the
former
cannot legislate on any subject on which congress has acted, although
the
two laws are not in terms contradictory and repugnant to each other.

11.-8. Where congress prescribed the punishment to be inflicted on
a
militia man, detached and called forth, but refusing to march, and also

provided that courts martial for the trial of such delinquent's, to be
composed of militia officers only, should be held and conducted in the
manner pointed out by the rules and articles of war, and a state had
passed
a law enacting the penalties on such delinquents which the act of
congress
prescribed, and directing lists of the delinquents to be furnished to
the
comptroller of the United States and marshal, that further proceeding
might
take place according to the act of congress, and providing for their
trial
by state courts martial, such state courts martial have jurisdiction.
Congress might have vested exclusive jurisdiction in courts martial to
be
held according to their laws, but not having done so expressly, their
jurisdiction is not exclusive.

12.-9. Although congress have exercised the whole power of calling
out
the militia, yet they are not national militia, till employed in actual

service; and they are not employed in actual service, till they arrive
at
the place of rendezvous. 5 Wheat. 1; Vide 1 Kent's Com. 262; 3 Story,
Const.
Sec. 1194 to 1210.

13. The acts of the national legislature which regulate the militia
are
the following, namely: Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Story, L. U. S. 252; Act
of
February 28, 1795, 1 Story, L. U. S. 390; Act of March 2, 1803, 2
Story, L.
U. S. 888; Act of April 10, 1806, Story, L. U. S. 1005; Act of April
20,
1816, 3 Story, L. U. S. 1573; Act of May 12, 1820, 3 Story, L. U. S.
1786
Act of March 2, 1821, 3 Story; L. U. S. 1811.

[end excerpt]

So, while we all know that some states like Georgia defined arms as
weapons generally, both for personal self-defense and also defense of
the state in a well-regulated militia, other states like Tennessee
stuck to the strict term of art used in the US Constitution, arms were
arms of war, Congress armed the militia with uniform muskets,
ammunition, body armor, swords, cannon, the arms of war.

So in this case we have to study even harder to understand the term of
art "arms", as it was applied by states in different ways, but by the
US Congress in the sense of arms of war only.

This is just another example of how an idiot like Frank Tauss or
Homedunce can waste lots of time if you take the time to correct most
of their ignorant mistakes. So I don't do that all the time, eh Great
Goose?

Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh...

POINT PROVEN!

_________________


Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England:
Introduction

Of the NATURE of LAWS in general.

§. 2.

2. IF words happen to be ftill dubious, we may eftablifh
their meaning from the context; with which it may be of
fingular ufe to compare a word, or a fentence, whenever they
are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the proeme, or
preamble, is often called in to help the conftruction of an
act of parliament. Of the fame nature and ufe is the
comparifon of a law with other laws, that are made by the
fame legiflator, that have fome affinity with the fubject,
or that expreffly relate to the fame point. Thus, when the
law of England declares murder to be felony without benefit
of clergy, we muft refort to the fame law of England to
learn what the benefit of clergy is: and, when the common
law cenfures fimoniacal contracts, it affords great light to
the fubject to confider what the canon law has adjudged to
be fimony.

What the Loon Weasel just said here is that the 2nd amendment means
that individual citizens have the right to keep and bear weapons of
war.

I said some of the states had a different legal definition of RKBA than
the Constitution has.

So you're functionally illiterate, eh Homedunce?

______________________


Divinatio non interpretatio est, quae omnino recedit a litera. It is a
guess not interpretation which altogether departs from the letter.
Bacon's Max. in Reg. 3, p. 47.


--


Yours truly,

The Lone Weasel

Loony: You don't even know the meaning of the words _you_ write (or
more often steal from someone else)--nevermind understanding what
anyone else writes.

.

Quantcast