Reading the comments regarding the recent “Recoil” magazine flap it’s become quite obvious that folks don’t know much about the First Amendment in particular, followed closely by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
I’m looking for someone who is articulate and most of all actually knows what they are talking about regarding the Bill of Rights. It must be easy to read and understand, void of legal jargon and an original work with references, preferably hot linked online.
If you feel qualified and are interested in taking this project on, feel free to contact me at admin@soldiersystems.net to discuss.
What are you asking for in this post? I’m very familiar with the story you are referencing about Recoil magazine. I just don’t know what it is you’re asking to be written and for what purpose.
First and Second Amendments in laymans terms. Without the big fancy words and terms that some dont understand.
One of the issues is that people don’t seem to get that while the First Amendment protects freedom of public speech and religion from Government control there are actually limits. Additionally, there are definite limits on speech in private venues. Finally, the First Amendment does not protect the speaker from the consequences of his or her speech.
Why beat this till iTs glue?
The right of every citizen to be capable of bearing arms against a tyrannical government, is unfortunately in drast contrast to everyone having at thier dispose full automatic firearms…and yes it’s very true the the Swiss did and do pretty much just that….but huge diferance is that every Swiss “able” citizine has to do millity service. And in so doing are conditioned into a mindset that’s nothing like here. I compleatly understand what and why our Forfathers were thinking when they put pen to paper, the problem comes into play when you consider how much “power” can be had by just one citizine with a full auto weapon, that’s in such contrast with the thinking of the writers of the Constitution that they possibly would of considered it as witchcraft. I understand the need to have the RIGHT,but I constantly fight with the reality of its truth……….
Understand my family came over on the mayflower,iv lost ancestors to the rebellion in Quebec and in our own Civil War,
” I believe we of good standing via right of citizenship to this country should be able to possess any size semi-auto firearm of any numbers and of any caliber to defend our rights and freedoms as stated in our Constitution And the Bill of Rights. And such rights shale not be hindered by individual States or Commenwelth”
Thomas Buonomo.
Just say Baaaaa! Your comments about citizens not being able to own automatic weapons and your apparent agreement and acceptance of that fact clearly shows the need for a well thought out and researched article on the subject of the RKBA to clear up your misconceptions. While the government may pass myriad Unconstitutional laws (like NFA ’34 & GCA ’68) that does not mean they are valid despite the fact that we have allowed them to stand all of these years. They are both clearly unconstitutional when compared with the founder’s intent. If you want to know what that was read their writings as well as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers where they very clearly spelled out the meaning of the Constitution and the BoR.
Things that were true in the past do not equate to the present…….
I was going to try and state my possition a bit more, but reading your other replys your a wacko……probably a freestater…….and your type and personas are the real threat to our rights to “bear arms”
A tree that bends in the wind stands the test of time………………….the stiff ones make good lumber for coffins.
And your a tool, the type that has allowed our freedoms to be eroded. The fact that you thinks someone who believes in the Founder’s Republic and our Constitution is a wacko says everything there is to know about you. You would have made sure the trains in Germany ran on time, wouldn’t you?
Hey Tomaso, you’re obviously the type that believes whatever laws the government passes are acceptable since in your mind the Constitution is a “living Document,” rights can be neutered, and government is infallible, anyway I found a video of you here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OpgiNEyBVA
It’s all about encroachment, the government is the only institution on earth that has the “right” to encroach on its people. Our founders did the best they could to set back that inevitable power grab but with each passing election the government encroaches more and more, they believe they have the right to take the rights we, the people, are entitled to from our Creator. This country was set up on the model that there is a Higher Law above all else (God’s Law or however you want to put it) and the basest of it is “Do all that you have agreed to do and do not encroach on other persons or their property.” and no one can make laws that go against those. Those are the 2 fundamental laws. Stealing: encroachment on someones property, Murder: encroachment on someone, Assault: encroachment on someone, you get the picture. We have been raised on these “laws” or ethics and that’s why America has prospered so, unfortunately children are being raised away from that, one of the reasons we are going down hill. These were in essence what the Founders were trying to achieve, the Higher Law model. You know man cannot serve 2 masters; Man’s Law(what we see a lot of today) and God’s law (or Higher Law if you will). The average citizen had an idea about these “laws” up to around the depression and from there you can see how much “they” have grown. We have forgotten the 2 fundamental laws and that’s one of the reasons why we let the “powers that” be get away with the stuff they do. If we get back to these fundamental laws it would give us a system on which to address all of major political problems we face today; like abortion, gun rights, ect. In that respect the right to bear arms means this: “The natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life; second, to liberty; third to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can” Sam Adams, unless we have done something incriminating to us, we should have the right to own whatever will keep ourselves, family, and property safe… from anything
If you want to get technical, We the People only have the right to bear arms in the sense of a militia. No where in the Constitution or the BoR does it ever say we have the individual liberties to posses and own a firearm, for lack of better terms, for “personal” use.
And I love my guns just as much as the next guy but its true.
Scott: On the contrary, the words of the Second Amendment stand for an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes—the very proposition you dismiss. There are plenty of law review articles out there that analyze this in detail, but the most thorough and accessible analysis is Justice Scalia’s majority opinion in D.C. v. Heller (just Google it for the PDF), in pages 2-56 of the opinion.
The meaning of the text at the time it was written and ratified is what controls (the method of statutory interpretation in common usage at the time of our nation’s founding), and in this case that’s very clear and easy to ascertain.
I’m curious where you got that from?
Scott, your comments here further SSD’s idea that an article should be written for the community. If I may add, the links attached to such article should link to an academic site, not some crazy’s blog. Additionally quotes of the founders who wrote the BoR would go along way in understanding where the men who envisioned it were coming from. Thanks to Farragut above for quickly and articulately correcting, with proper citation, Scott’s misunderstanding.
Tomaso let me add a couple of things o your comments. In the United States of America, it is legal for a citizen to own a fully automatic weapon. In fact, prior to June of 1934 there were no restrictions. Congress enacted the National Firearms Act on June 26, 1934. The NFA did two things. First, it levied and excise tax under the authority granted to Congress by the 16th Amendment. Second, it required that automatic weapons be registered. Nothing prohibited the individual from owning an automatic weapon.
The NFA was Congressional response to organized crime in the United States and organized crime had its underpinning in Prohibition. Prohibition was the catalyst behind organized crime in the United States. Very much like the drug cartels that we deal with today.
Yes I know quite well all about getting a stamp for SBR’s Silencers and full auto guns. I think the average wait time is in excess of 5 months right about now, possible longer.
I think i was focusing on the fact that many states forbid many aspect of firearms ownership or sever limitations. My comment was also figuring in that 5 month wait time on any type of firearm isn’t what I call freedom to arms.
So you know about it, big whoop. You obviously don’t know or understand how completely unconstitutional they are though.
You are obviously one of those guys who agrees with everything government says like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OpgiNEyBVA
or was that you in the video?
Further food for thought on the unconstitutionality of these laws however our control freak bureaucrats wouldn’t dare follow the founder’s constitutional intent because to do so would undermine their power and put control back in the hands of the people where it belongs and lawfully resides:
“No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it. The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.” – 16th American Jurisprudence 2d, Section 177 late 2nd, section 256
“The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution.” -Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
Great….unconstitutional and all that…why don’t you go make an AR full auto, SBR it and don’t forget to put a silencer on …all with out the unconstitutional paper work…and finger the gov while your at it.
Just don’t tell ANYONE what you did…..better yet call a news conference.
For starters, read the U.S. Constitution in its’ entirety, including the Preamble and the Amendments, slowly and out loud. The words are expressed very clearly and succinctly, much to the distress of those who would argue otherwise. When in doubt, go back and read it again.
Amen!
I can sum this whole thing up in a matter of seconds. Any liberty written in the BoR can be over ruled at anytime, anywhere when health and public safety are at risk. This goes from verbal threats, to as far as lets say “I need to sacrifice a chicken on the corner of Main St everyday at noon because my religion says so”, which by itself poses a health risk because blood would be shooting everywhere, blah blah blah and are not allowed to do so.
My Quals,
Retired AF Security Forces
B.S. in History with a minor in Political Science
Scott said “I can sum this whole thing up in a matter of seconds. Any liberty written in the BoR can be over ruled at anytime, anywhere when health and public safety are at risk.”
Really Scott? What a tool! You would have been a Tory or a Redcoat during the Revolution. Read the quotes I posted below and then try and spout your drivel again. You definitely need to get your college tuition back unless you attended Berkley and then I would say you learned your lessons well!
U.S. Army FA
1987-2003
The following quotes by the authors of the Second Amendment, their contemporaries, various state and federal courts, and others should be useful in the debate over whether that amendment protects a right of individuals or only the military.
The Second Amendment states:
“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.”
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America” – (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.” (Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169)
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty…. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [ I Annals of Congress at 750 {August 17, 1789}])
“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)
“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in ‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))
“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Johnathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))
“…but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…” (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46.)
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)
“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)
“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
“The Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)
“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.” (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)
“The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” (Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646)
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850))
“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed., 1939)
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)
“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” – George Washington
“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. (Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley, Ed., reissued 1967])
“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])
“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)
“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])
“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])
“Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame.” (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755])
“The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Dwight, Travels in New England)
“What country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
(The American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, “Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]
“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and NewYork [London 1823]
“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46”)
“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])
“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government – and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979])
“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)
“You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)
“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
” ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]
“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]
“The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]
“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]
Somene knows how to cut and past.
Sure do, but do you know how to read them?