[GAGunOwner]

I was reading over some things about Dred Scott v. Sanford I came across something interesting that pertains to the 2nd Amendment. Here's the wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

And here's the quote I thought was interesting:

"It would give to persons of the ***** race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

This case was decided in 1857.

 

[GAGunOwner]

I just thought that it was interesting that the Court was willing to concede that free citizens had the unquestioned right to keep and carry arms wherever they went. This was as recent as 1857.

Somehow I doubt it helps our cause to quote this case.

 

[SigP229]

I'm surprised that this thread isn't getting any attention.

 

[Guest]

I think everyone has just come to the conclusion that GA does what GA wants and to hell with common sense and case law!

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I'm surprised that this thread isn't getting any attention.

It is probably old news for most here?

 

[oldguns]

But I thought that the individual right concept was a 20th century invention by gun rights extremists :roll:

 

[viper32cm]

But I thought that the individual right concept was a 20th century invention by gun rights extremists :roll:

We've always been at war with East Asia and we've always been allied with Eurasia.

Go, Ministry of Truth, Go!

 

[SigP229]

I'm surprised that this thread isn't getting any attention.

It is probably old news for most here?

I'm pretty new to all this, forgive me.

 

[gunsmoker]

Value

Legal scholars will say that this reference to the right to carry weapons is "orbitur dictum" -- surplus language that is not really necessary to the holding of the case. Therefore they will say it carries no more weight than if you asked some guys on a street corner if they think free white citizens have the right to carry weapons in public, and they said "yes."

Everyone else will say that whatever the Supreme Court said in this case is worthless, even if it WAS central to the holding, because this is the case that held that blacks were property, not citizens, and could never become citizens, and could never enjoy any of the protections of the U.S. constitution.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Re: Value

Legal scholars will say that this reference to the right to carry weapons is "orbitur dictum" -- surplus language that is not really necessary to the holding of the case. Therefore they will say it carries no more weight than if you asked some guys on a street corner if they think free white citizens have the right to carry weapons in public, and they said "yes."

Everyone else will say that whatever the Supreme Court said in this case is worthless, even if it WAS central to the holding, because this is the case that held that blacks were property, not citizens, and could never become citizens, and could never enjoy any of the protections of the U.S. constitution.

Nobody is contending it was the law as laid out by the Supreme Court, but it does give an interesting insight into how the Supreme Court justices would have viewed the question at the time had it been before them. They simply assume that a right of citizens exists "to keep and carry arms wherever they" go, and nobody bothered to question whether bear meant "carry" or whether this was not a right of citizenship at all.

If you look at the Camilla Massacre thread here with all of the depositions, you will see a similar line of reasoning for Georgia. Prior to the public gathering law (passed in response to the events in Camilla) it is clearly understood that blacks are citizens (due to the 14th Amendment) and that they can, and are in the habit of, "carrying arms wherever they went."

Well, the Georgia General Assembly sure fixed that in short order.

 

[lsu_nonleg]

I think everyone has just come to the conclusion that GA does what GA wants and to hell with common sense and case law!

Just because its case law doesn't make it's really Constitutional. Minor detail, that, Federal supremacy and the USSC.