Originally posted by Toad
You honor me too much. I've met Laz and spent quite a bit of time with him at a Con. I hold him in high regard and count him amongst the more honest and perceptive individuals I know. Certainly far more so than most that post here.
As for your SC justices. Miller was a travesty of justice, with many obvious flaws. A short barreled shotgun NOT an historic US military arm? Come now.
US v Emerson in 2001 said it quite plainly.
The section under consideration, in our bill of rights, was
adopted in reference to these historical facts, and in this point
of view its language is most appropriate and expressive. Its words
are, "the free white men of this state have a right to keep and
bear arms for their common defence." It, to be sure, asserts the
right much more broadly than the statute of William & Mary. For
the right there asserted is subject to the disabilities contained
in the act of Charles II. There, lords and esquires, and their
sons, and persons whose yearly income from land amounted to 100
pounds, were of suitable condition to keep arms. But, with us,
every free white man is of suitable condition, and, therefore,
every free white man may keep and bear arms. But to keep and bear
arms for what? If the history of the subject had left in doubt the
object for which the right is secured, the words that are employed
must completely remove that doubt. It is declared that they may
keep and bear arms for their common defence. The word "common,"
here used, means, according to Webster: 1. Belonging equally to
more than one, or to many indefinitely. 2. Belonging to the public.
3. General. 4. Universal. 5. Public.
The free white men may keep arms to protect the public
liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the
supremacy of the laws and the constitution. The words "bear arms,"
too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to
mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress. As the
object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of
general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body,
for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is
secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and
that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens
have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best
possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by
those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of
those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and
which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the
assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not
be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens.
The right to keep and bear them is not, therefore, secured by the
constitution.
Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
