Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

David Lentz <dlentz10@/*NOSPAM*/rochester.rr.com> wrote in 
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:

>> >> Irrelevant. Where is the term "bear arms" found above,
>> >> or that it is a fundamental absolute right? You just
>> >> make assertions and draw fantasy conclusions. The
>> >> courts consistently kick your butt on this:
>> >
>> > How so.  Does a man have the fundamental right to
>> > dissolve his government?  If yes, then he must have the
>> > right to keep and bear arms if he feels the need to
>> > exercise that right, such as it was exercised on April
>> > 19, 1775. 
>> 
>> In the US we dissolve governments by voting for somebody
>> else.  We can also amend the US Constitution, even
>> replacing the entire thing if 3/4 of the state
>> legislatures support it. 
>> 
>> You might as well have the patience for that kind of
>> dissolution, Linthead.  Your gunlobby hasn't forced but
>> one Federal Circuit Court to accept its disinformation,
>> and that was just some dicta by one judge supported by a
>> second judge with the third judge chastising both of them;
>> Judge Parker was joined by other Circuit judges, while no
>> other Circuit judge has used Garwood's dicta as the basis
>> of a legally binding decision.
> 
> Do you repudiate the actions of April 19, 1775, yes or no?

What do you mean "repudiate"?  I assume you mean a historical 
event.

Aren't you the repudiationist, Linthead?  You actually reject 
the U.S. Constitution and advocate insurrection to achieve your 
political goals.

Repudiationist.

__________________


19th century lawyer is big gun in concealed carry battle

BY PETER SHINKLE

Post-Dispatch

10/25/2003

As attorneys wrangle over the constitutionality of 
Missouri's new concealed weapons law, a figure from a 
turbulent era in the 19th century is casting his shadow 
through a St. Louis courtroom.

What Thomas T. Gantt said - and what he meant - as key 
member of a committee that helped draft the 1875 revision of 
the state constitution is at the crux of a trial court 
dispute certain to end up with the Missouri Supreme Court.

That version of the constitution added a provision to the 
right of citizens to bear arms, saying "this shall not 
justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

Records of the day show that Gantt, a prominent lawyer who 
once helped quell bloody riots in the streets of St. Louis, 
had a strong opinion in the matter. "It is a practice which 
cannot be too severely condemned," he said. "It is a 
practice fraught with the most incalculable evil."

...

For all the rancor now, the original constitutional 
provision apparently provoked little debate.

On May 13, 1875, Gantt, then an attorney in private 
practice, reported on the committee's draft of a bill of 
rights and preamble. He introduced the section reaffirming a 
citizen's right "to bear arms when he is summoned legally or 
under authority of law to aid the civil processes or defend 
the state."

Gantt said, "There will be no difference of opinion I think 
on that subject; but then the declaration is distinctly made 
that nothing contained in this provision shall sanction or 
justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

He noted that in at least one other state, its 
constitution's right to bear arms had led to a conclusion 
that its legislature could not make concealed weapons 
illegal.

"The wearing of concealed weapons is a practice which I 
presume meets with the general reprobation of all thinking 
men," Gantt continued, speaking at a time when infamous 
outlaw Jesse James was terrorizing Missouri.

His comments are recounted in the 12-volume Debates of the 
Missouri Constitutional Convention of 1875, which lawyers 
said appears to reflect no significant debate on the issue.

On May 25, 1875, the amendment was adopted without further 
discussion of concealed weapons. A year earlier, the 
Legislature had passed a law making them illegal anyway.

-- 

Join the NRA Blacklist!
http://www.nrablacklist.com/

The Lone Weasel