Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
Really? So her ruling on "carry" definitions has nothing at all to do with "keeping and bearing arms"?
Then our last course for redress of grievances has played itself out. It means that the King has rejected our request to restore our Rights. It means that things may well progress to the "Boston Common" stage.
Asked and answered, what, 6 times already? If you consider no immediate effect = no effect, then, sure, who cares?
But in 1982, the 7th Circuit ruled that "arms" do not include handguns, and now the cities of Chicago, Morton Grove, Oak Park, Evanston and Wilmette have used that to ban handgun ownership. Not "disassembled", not "with a trigger lock", not "room-to-room". A total ban.
Recently, a homeowner in Wilmette had a handgun, used it to shoot a burglar, and the homeowner was arrested.
What if they did, indeed.
Which is on its face a ridiculous statement. One that would be over turned under a positive ruling by the SCOTUS on the 2A.
If the SCOTUS rules as it should, then that "ban" would be null and void, the homeowner should get restitution from those who passed and adjudicated that "ban", and anyone attempting to emplace another "ban" should be jailed on charges of "deprivation of a civil rights under color of law".
But aren't you an advocate of State Constitutions protecting individual RKBA? Doesn't Illinois have an RKBA in the State constitution?
SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(sarc)Whiz bang job your "state" is doing of protecting an individual Right...(/sarc)
Only if you think "carry" is the same as "bear".
Did the Founding Fathers think that? Should we put a modern interpretation on "bear" or should we go with original meaning?
You can try using that as your defense at your trial.
If the SCOTUS rules as it should
7 famous last words.
Six states don't have concealed carry. I don't see those citizens progressing to the "Boston Common" stage.
Ladies and Gentlemen... I give you robertpaulsen's interpretation of Bill Clinton...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carry
Even in historical usage... any differences are without distinction.
The Founders wanted a BROAD interpretations for Rights protections, not your narrow ones...
Isn't that what Parker/Heller and Co. are doing?
Yet. Because there is still hope. We should know by the 26th if the SCOTUS will hear it. If they do, then it should all be over and done with by Summers end next year.
The Founders wanted their words interpreted correctly. If they meant "carry arms" they would have said "carry arms".
Which you aren't doing. Will you next argue that "light" doesn't mean "bright"? And that "alive" doesn't mean "living"?
How desperate do you have to be to submit that the Founders idea of "bearing arms" didn't include the act of carrying them? Do you think they intended for everyone to wait at home for someone who was authorized to "carry" it for them to whereever it was to be used, and then given back before they could move from that spot?
Apparently, when you have no other argument, argue the definition of the word “is”...
I never said that. I said "to bear" means something different than "to carry". And if Judge Ginsburg has an opinion on the definition of "to carry" it does not mean that opinion applies to "to bear".
"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. 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."
-- Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)
You can argue that “carrying arms” does not necessarily imply “bearing arms”. You cannot argue that “bearing arms” does not necessarily imply “carrying arms”. You cannot restrict the right to carry arms without restricting the right to bear arms, since personal arms are invariably carried in the process of being borne.
Who cares? You go off on these stupid and senseless tangents.
The point was that Judge Ginsburg's opinion of "to carry" is in no way relevant to the phrase "to bear".
But maybe I'm missing something. Tell me the connection between "to carry arms in a locked glove compatment" and "to bear arms into battle".
You can't bear arms in battle without having carried them there. What do locked glove compartments have to do with it?
You were the one to start arguing the difference between "carry" and "bear".
More germane to the argument would be "carrying a firearm in a holster" or "bearing them in a vehicle". Either are apropos, interchangeable, and accurate.
If you seek to narrow the definition, you do so at the expense of reason. Don't do that... it's annoying and beneath you.
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.