[tpaine]

In English v Texas the Texas Supreme Court held that weapons such as "dirks, daggers, slungshots, sword-canes, brass-knuckles and bowie knives, belong to no military vocabulary" and affirmed the right of the State of Texas to control their use, --

Do you contend that the state of Texas can "control the use" of arms such as "dirks, daggers, slungshots, sword-canes, brass-knuckles and bowie knives," by enacting prohibitions on possession?

[StJacques]

"Do you contend that the state of Texas can "control the use" of arms such as "dirks, daggers, slungshots, sword-canes, brass-knuckles and bowie knives," by enacting prohibitions on possession?"

It doesn't matter what I contend the State of Texas can or cannot do. What matters is what the laws on the books actually say the State of Texas can or cannot do.

According to English v Texas the State of Texas can control the concealed use of these weapons. That is what the law is. I made no normative comment about the wisdom of the ruling. I introduced the decision, which IS a part of case law, for its strict declaration of militia arms as establishing a precedent that the National Firearms Act overturned by legislation, which is an approach not legal in the American system of jurisprudence, which thus calls into question the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.

So the proper question to ask me if you wish to contest my posting of the information in English v Texas is whether you think I got it wrong in stating, as I pointedly did, that the National Firearms Act may be considered unconstitutional for ignoring the precedent in this case. Do you think I got that wrong? If "yes," then say so.