On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 11:15:53 -0800, Gunner
wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:34:00 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
Yup. But even in 1828, as Webster tells us, the "encroach" usage was
still "little used."
But infringed was used.
Yes, in the sense of "broken." As in, completely violated. Not in the
sense of "encroached upon."
That's why Heller et al. says that regulations are permitted.
In fact, it was a corruption. "Infringe" derives from Latin, "to
break." "Fringe" derives from a back formation meaning "thread," or,
literally, "fringe."
Different roots. Different meanings. And as Webster (1828) says,
"infringed" had only one side of the meaning: "pp. Broken; violated;
transgresses."
So the right to keep and bear arms shall not be broken, violated or
transgressed upon. Thanks!!
No "encroached." That had not yet reached common usage. In law, it
still is not what the word means. Break or violate is the legal usage.
Odd...you changed it again. Why..didnt like your Broken, violated,
transgresses when I slammed you in the teeth with them?
Those were the things I pointed out days ago, and then you keep
bringing up the meanings equivalent to "encroached." Shall I post an
example?
I think you slammed yourself in the teeth there, Gunner. As the courts
have said, your right isn't "infringed" unless they keep you from
owning a gun.
And you spew about Heller..which is a judgment that somewhat returns
law to Constitutional standards?
Spew? Mostly I quote. It's one type of originalist interpretation:
original meaning, rather than original intent.
One of. What part of the Founders writings did you and your
Leftwingers seem to ignore..other than ALL of them?
It is not textualist. It is not about intent. It is based on Scalia's
doctrinal approach, which is "original meaning." (which, FWIW, makes
the most sense to me.)
And we are back to Scalia again. Fascinating. Shall we go back to
Dred Scott again too? Hummm
Only if you want to keep hanging your hat on decisions that have bneen
overturned.
So if it was mandated to be legal to flush your toilet 200 yrs
ago..and then some idiots made it illegal..then a couple years
ago..they said you could flush it on alternate days...it was new law?
Which laws is that? Your hypotheticals make no sense. Try real laws.
No firearms allowed in DC, NYC, Chicago etc etc etc. The Right to
Keep and Bear arms is badly infringed and in fact..broken, violated
and transgressed upon.
It's not quite true that firearms weren't allowed in those places. In
NYC, handguns have always been allowed with a license.
In DC..they were not allowed. In NYC..you couldnt get a liscense.
INFRINGED.
Nope.
http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/pe...ml#HowDoIApply
I know a physician who has a NYC carry permit. The gun nutz keep
saying they aren't allowed. That's not true.
The truth is, they're "may issue," just like NJ, and they're damned
hard to get. But the Court didn't define what restrictions would be
allowed, so it will be unlikely that a case reaches the Court from a
denial in NYC.
What Heller decided was that a total ban on handguns, as in D.C. and
Chicago, are unconstitutional. As for what regulations and limitations
the Court will allow, we don't know yet. And the lower federal courts
regularly express their uncertainty about the consequences of Heller.
Yet if you read the Founders words...The Right to keep and Bear Arms
Shall not be Infringed...its pretty must graven in stone. NO INFRINGED
Not broken. Not violated. As long as you can have guns, the right is
not infringed.
You and your Leftwinger buddies have spewed your desires for so
long...even the courts are either afraid of rocking the boat too
badly..or are afraid of you and yours.
Is that your new ride in Gun Nutz Fantasyland? Do you need a ticket
for that?
So Heller was a return to Constitutional
law...somewhat. Still not "legal" to bear arms in those places..so
its not returned to Constitutional mandate...its still broken,
violated and transgressed upon.
That remains to be seen. If a handgun carry case reaches the Supreme
Court, expect fireworks.
They simply need to review the 2nd Amendment, written in 1787
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, shall NOT be Infringed.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Right. And if you can own a gun for personal, legal use (such as
self-defense), your right is not infringed. Nothing more, nothing
less.
--
Ed Huntress