Dave Hardy is, arguably, THE legal source on gun argumentation. Here he addresses the 9th Circus' ruling that the 2A doesn't provide for "carrying" arms.
As you might suspect, the 9th couldn't even read the history correctly.
...A major part of the huge opinion is devoted to claiming that Medieval English kings, and the statute of Northampton, restricted going "armed" in public. I've compiled quite a bit of historical evidence that up through Tudor times, "armed" meant wearing armor, not carrying weapons. In that era, carrying blades was simply being well-dressed, and carrying bow and arrows was simply performing one's legal duty. Wearing armor, on the other hand, meant you were looking for a fight....
Where do we find such "men"?
Grim also has thoughts on the matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment