On 2/25/2013 11:20 AM, Gunner wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:41:57 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 01:35:32 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:44:02 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:11:44 -0800, Gunner
wrote:

On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:06:44 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:


Ed either really, really just doesn't get it or, more likely, he will
NEVER admit he is wrong.

You sit here and say all this is wrong, while REAL Constitutional
scholars -- Scalia, Roberts, Alito...even Thomas and Blackstone, fer
chrissake, all say YOU're wrong.

Heller quotes numerous cases of regulation of guns, including several
outright BANS of concealed carry from the 19th century, as evidence
that there have always been limitations on the "right," that "shall
not be infringed" never meant "no restrictions," as Scalia says,

"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever
purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy
152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century
courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying
concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues." -- Opinion of the Court, D.C. v. Heller

19th century...odd..wasnt the 2nd Amendment written in the 18th
century?

What was the various laws at that time? Hummm?

He said from Blackstone (died 1780) *THROUGH* the 19th century.


If he said that..he had better come up with the citations to back up
his claim

VBG

I hope you mean that as a joke, because the Court already DID come up
with the citations.

A few of them are posted above. When you actually get around to
reading Heller, you'll find more.

Odd...all I see are conflicts with various generations of SCOTUS

VBG

http://www.davekopel.com/2a/lawrev/35finalpartone.htm

Dicta and dissenting opinions; no holding.