Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Right to Bear Arms? What History Tells Us.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Torien
    replied
    Legal Eagle & Miss You. I thought we might hear more from both of you! Is this discussion over? Don't either of you want to join in anywhere else in our great forum?

    It was fun while it lasted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Miss You
    replied
    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    Could you be mistaken about that? Is it possible that the appeals court found that the language ("an engine to destroy game") in 5 Anne, c. 14, , wasn't broad enough to include a "gun", and the appeals court's ruling wasn't based on a finding that 5 Anne, c. 14 violated the English Bill of Rights?
    Are you going to give us an answer?

    Is it possible that that the defendant's lawyer argued that the defendant's conviction was improper because the act he was accused of committing wasn't even an offense under the game law he was accused of violating, because the general language of the game act wasn't broad enough to include a gun, and the list of specifically prohibited hunting devices didn't include guns?

    Is it possible that Chief Justice Lee said the defendant's lawyer's objection to his client's conviction had great weight because the fourth clause of the Game Act, which listed the prohibited instruments, did not include guns, and the general language of the act only prohibited those instruments which had no other purpose than the destruction of game?
    Last edited by Miss You; 22 Nov 08, 12:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kaiser Franz
    replied
    The only time I have ever seen a lawyer give up was when the client ran out of money -- and then it was "instant settlement"

    Leave a comment:


  • General Staff
    replied
    When you get paid by the word, what's to give up? Have you ever heard of a lawyer giving a refund without a chargeable legal round or two?

    Leave a comment:


  • Kaiser Franz
    replied
    I'll have to say you both are determined -- Neither appears to be giving and inch -- I like that -- reminds me of -- well -- umm - Me

    Leave a comment:


  • General Staff
    replied
    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    That wasn't the case in the 1730's, my friend. You need to brush up on English History. Parliament made all English law at that time. The King had no legislative power whatsoever in the 1730's.
    Yes, but Parliament was dominated by the Norman Aristocracy or co-opted Saxon landholders- sellouts if you will.

    So these laws were just an attempt to keep the population under control and keep the game to themselves.

    BTW I loved the phrase "an engine to destroy game". LoL and thanks. To a simple Saxon said engine could be a few deer, a staghound and a cliff.

    Leave a comment:


  • legaleagle_45
    replied
    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    That wasn't the case in the 1730's, my friend. You need to brush up on English History. Parliament made all English law at that time. The King had no legislative power whatsoever in the 1730's.
    LOL, how does that statement contradict what I said, which was this:


    Now you are demonstrating your ignorance. The game act was not an exercise of the King, but an act of Parliment.
    Which was in resopnse to your statement:

    is further possible that the game law wasn't in conflict with the English Bill of Rights, because although the Bill of Rights allowed the King make laws regulating the keeping of arms, he had not made one that prohibited what the defendant was accused of?
    Seems that the one demonstrating their ignorance is you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Miss You
    replied
    Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
    Now you are demonstrating your ignorance. The game act was not an exercise of the King, but an act of Parliment. As such, and because the UK operates under what is known as “parliamentary supremacy” it allows Parliament to override any right otherwise established by law or custom.
    That wasn't the case in the 1730's, my friend. You need to brush up on English History. Parliament made all English law at that time. The King had no legislative power whatsoever in the 1730's.

    Leave a comment:


  • Miss You
    replied
    Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
    That is indeed what they ruled, not due to the express words of the game act, but because of the English Bill Of Rights and the rules of statutory construction...
    Could you be mistaken about that? Is it possible that the appeals court found that the language ("an engine to destroy game") in 5 Anne, c. 14, , wasn't broad enough to include a "gun", and the appeals court's ruling wasn't based on a finding that 5 Anne, c. 14 violated the English Bill of Rights?
    Last edited by Miss You; 21 Nov 08, 19:26.

    Leave a comment:


  • legaleagle_45
    replied
    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    Is it possible that you have some of the facts of the case wrong?
    That is always a possibility.

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    Is it also possible that the defendant was convicted in the trial court for mere possession of a gun under a game law?
    The Justice of the Peace Court did convict the defendandant. The appeals court reversed that conviction.

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    that the appeals court ruled didn't prohibit such an act?
    That is indeed what they ruled, not due to the express words of the game act, but because of the English Bill Of Rights and the rules of statutory construction...
    It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England.
    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    is further possible that the game law wasn't in conflict with the English Bill of Rights, because although the Bill of Rights allowed the King make laws regulating the keeping of arms, he had not made one that prohibited what the defendant was accused of?
    Now you are demonstrating your ignorance. The game act was not an exercise of the King, but an act of Parliment. As such, and because the UK operates under what is known as “parliamentary supremacy” it allows Parliament to override any right otherwise established by law or custom. Indeed, even the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights are subject to the express intervention of Parliament. Examples of such intervention has eliminated the bar of double jeopardy (if the crime is really, really serious, LOL) and trial by jury in criminal cases (if the facts are too "complex", LOL) under some circumstances... and by merely an express act of Parliment. See, e.g., Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2003, c.44) §44, §48, §75 (UK). However, in order to do so Parliment must expressly state its will to do so, which is why the Court stated: "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature...." See, the rules of stautory construction provided that such rights of englishmen would not be defeated by mere legislative implication. There must be an express indication of their intent in order to override the great and ancient rights and privleges of englishmen.

    Now, of course, you can state there was no "right" to arms in England due to “parliamentary supremacy”, but you would also have to say there was no right to free speech, or trial by jury, or any other right whatsoever... but that is not what the English thought in the 1700's, that is not what Blackstone thought and that is not what the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights thought as they mirrored the English Bill of Rights into many provisions of the US Bill of Rights....

    Leave a comment:


  • General Staff
    replied
    Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
    Not on me, but I could run down to the local law library if you find it important to do so.
    Yes I've been in one or two myself. A good place to nap, even sleep.

    Ever read a book where you got to the end of the page and said 'huh? what did that say?'. Then had to start all over again. Repeat enough times and it's almost better than counting sheep.

    Leave a comment:


  • Miss You
    replied
    Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
    Not on me, but I could run down to the local law library if you find it important to do so. The fact is, I have indeed read it in full.
    Is it possible that you have some of the facts of the case wrong? Is it also possible that the defendant was convicted in the trial court for mere possession of a gun under a game law that the appeals court ruled didn't prohibit such an act? Is is further possible that the game law wasn't in conflict with the English Bill of Rights, because although the Bill of Rights allowed the King make laws regulating the keeping of arms, he had not made one that prohibited what the defendant was accused of?
    Last edited by Miss You; 21 Nov 08, 13:54.

    Leave a comment:


  • legaleagle_45
    replied
    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    So, you don't actually have a copy of the actual opinion?
    Not on me, but I could run down to the local law library if you find it important to do so. The fact is, I have indeed read it in full.

    Leave a comment:


  • legaleagle_45
    replied
    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    They didn't do it the first time the Constitution had to be interpreted.
    Yet Courts and commentators were interpreting the law and constitutions and charters and other legal documents well before the US Constitution was even dreamed of.

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    Not if the cases and interpretations were ex post facto.
    It is kinda hard to interpret something before it is created. The point is you are relying on the same things... the same sources, which you claim are unreliable.

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    I just told you I don't consider anything not admissible under the rules of legal construction existent at the time the Constitution was made.
    Obviously false, since you were more than willing to cite Tucker, when you were so inclined. So what is the big deal now? No reliable source, huh?

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    Why don't you write a commentary on the rules of construction?
    Why don't you? As for myself, I have other more pressing concerns.

    Originally posted by Miss You View Post
    Have you ever practiced law, legally?
    I have been for a very long time. Have you?

    The thing that bothers me the most from persons on your side of this debate is the tendency to distort... or to provide so called "pop quizzes". I am not merely talking about Bellesiles, who actually fabricated evidence, but also such luminaries as Saul Cornell who misrepresent by intentional non disclosure of material fact. For instance, Cornell made the same claim you did concerning Tucker, quoting the passage where Tucker is interpreting the Militia clauses as proof of what Tucker thought the 2nd Amend meant, while completely omitting the direct interpretation of the 2nd Amend by Tucker. This can not be explained away as inadvertant or negligent. Cornell did this not on a message board such as this, but in his book "A Well-Regulated Militia; The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America".

    I will tell you a bit about myself, Miss You. I do not own a gun. I never have and probably never will. I am not a member of the NRA or any other such organization and never have been. My interest in this issue arises elsewhere and for other reasons.... perhaps best summed up by Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor, Former Board Member of the ACLU and die hard liberal:

    "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like."

    Leave a comment:


  • Miss You
    replied
    Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
    As I have previously informed, and as far as I am aware, Rex v Gardner is unavailable in full on the web. Nor is my law library so extensive that it contains English case law circa 1700's. I have read it in full however, the last time in January of 2008.
    So, you don't actually have a copy of the actual opinion?

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X