You are confusing not exercising a power with not having that power. The government had the power all along.
The people's rights didn't change.
They were always restricted by what the law allowed.
It was the law that changed, not the right.
So you are willing to argue that the right as you define it specifies only ONE type of weapon is allowed?
So under your argument they could ban every weapon but the one that is currently the standard infantry weapon. (That seems to be rather large concession on your part as to how limited the right is.)
WTF? You don't seem to understand what the right is. They can have weapons allowed by law.
When the type of weapons allowed changes it doesn't change the right. The right still exists only the weapons allowed has changed.
The law always allowed them to have whatever was the standard infantry weapon of the day.
I understand just fine. What you are referring to were narrow restrictions aimed at limited types of guns, and never prevented people from having standard infantry guns.
parados wrote:When the type of weapons allowed changes it doesn't change the right. The right still exists only the weapons allowed has changed.
The Firearms Act of 1920 was not a change in what types of weapons were allowed to the public. It gave the government the power to completely disarm individual people.
It seems you want to argue that your opinion trumps the actual words of the EBR.
Arguing that owning a gun is a right granted by the EBR is nonsense.
If that was true then the only way to overturn that would be to repeal that part of the EBR.
The current gun laws in Britian align perfectly with the words in the EBR.
What utter nonsense. If that was true then there would have been no reason to implement the EBR. The law didn't always allow them to have the standard infantry weapon.
The restrictions were within the rights granted by the EBR. You don't seem to understand right granted in the EBR vs laws passed to restrict weapons under the rights.
According to your 'definition' of rights and laws/acts, already the Assize of Arms of 1181 did so.
Not at all. I am merely pointing out what the words meant.
Yes. That is exactly what happened in 1920.
I understand perfectly. These restrictions were rules and regulations for people to follow in their ownership of guns.
The judges who originally interpreted the right needed the text of the right in order to interpret it.
The only reason to refer back to the original text today would be to interpret it anew. My position is that we should focus solely on the existing interpretations of ancient judges.
I cannot envision how allowing non-Protestants to have guns would interfere with anyone else's rights.
This right came about because the previous king had just tried to disarm Protestants. The text might have referred specifically to Protestants having the right because Protestants were the ones who had just been the victims of disarmament. There might not have been any intent to exclude non-Protestants from exercising the right as well.
Limiting a right would be violating that right.
If expanding a right caused the violation of a different right, that would be harmful and judges shouldn't do that.
But an expansion that doesn't cause the violation of other rights doesn't do any harm. I see no reason why judges shouldn't be allowed to expand rights in circumstances where there is no harm done.
I am confident that everything that I wrote in that paragraph is 100% correct.
No, you are not.
What does "allowed under the law" mean to you?
There is no restriction that no laws could be passed in the future.
What part of any law overturned the EBR?
Citizens are still allowed to have weapons allowed under the law precisely the way the EBR states.
Changing which weapons are allowed doesn't change the EBR.
Changing the types of weapons complies completely with the EBR.
Really?
Where does the EBR even mention guns?
Where does it mention weapons carried by the infantry?
You simply make stuff up and then expect us to believe you.
I'm not sure why, unless you're assuming that their interpretations are correct, which is a sort of begging the question.
But the authors of the EBR could.
No, here you're quite wrong. The authors of the EBR had no interest in seeing weapons of any kind in the hands of non-Protestants, whom they regarded as little better than traitors.
If a law, for instance, is limited to persons 65 and older, that doesn't mean it also applies to people younger than 65.
Even if it is to preserve someone else's right?
So prohibiting someone from shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is a violation of that person's right to free speech?
But sometimes it can't be helped. Rights come into conflict all the time.
Who decides?
oralloy wrote:I am confident that everything that I wrote in that paragraph is 100% correct.
Yeah, I know.
When I point out what a law means, that counts as pointing out what a law means.
These restrictions were rules and regulations for people to follow in their ownership of guns. This was never authorization to prevent someone from having guns altogether.
The part of the Firearms Act of 1920 that allowed the government to prevent people from having guns, overturned the part of the English Bill of Rights that gave everyone (or at least all Protestants) the right to have guns.
Not necessarily. A restriction broad enough to prevent the possession of whatever was the standard infantry gun of the day would have been contrary to what the right intended.
That was understood by everyone to begin with. England had for centuries encouraged the general populace to own and use whatever was the standard infantry weapon of the day.
The legal and historical record (and the existence of facts in general) are hardly things that I created myself.
My entire position is based on the assumption that their interpretation is the correct one.
You seem confident that they intended non-Protestants to be disarmed. Is there someplace I can read more about this?
Yes, but I'm not so sure that the text was intended as a limitation.
We'll see if any arguments arise against what I wrote in that paragraph.
We are talking about the words of the right granted in the EBR. Pointing out what a law says does not tell us what the EBR says. You are interchanging the laws with the rights you claim were granted.
The rights have not changed. The laws have.
In your first sentence you admit there can be rules and regulations to follow for gun ownership.
Then in your second sentence you argue that the current rules and regulations are not authorized.
People can own guns in England. They do own guns in England. There are rules and regulations in place for them to follow in the ownership of guns.
You are arguing it is fine to make rules and regulations as long as they are not rules and regulations you disagree with.
The EBR didn't grant the right to have guns. It granted the right to have arms as allowed by the law. Guns are not the only type of arms and guns are not exempt from being restricted by law.
You mis-characterize and bastardize the words found in the EBR.
What do you think the right intended?
You keep changing your argument.
Is it a right to defend oneself in the home as the court cases you quoted?
Is it a right to carry arms openly in public?
Is it a right to have standard infantry weapons which you have never presented a court case that says that?
Do you ever stop to consider how you contradict yourself? Read your statement again. Then go back and read some of your previous arguments?
If only you would rely on the legal and historical record instead of making up meanings.
That assumption may not be warranted.
More to the point, your interpretation of their interpretation of the EBR may not be accurate.
I think that is what parados is trying to get across to you.
There is no shortage of books on the Glorious Revolution. The time for you to read up on that event may have been before you started forming conclusions about that event.
Because?
Would any such argument sway you?
Good grief. Whether I'm explaining what the law says or explaining what a right says, I'm still explaining what words mean.
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
However people in England no longer have a right to have guns, that right having been repealed in 1920. If the government there wishes, it can prevent individuals from having guns.
The authorization of rules for governing the possession of guns was not authorization for barring individuals from possessing any gun.
Quote:That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
However people in England no longer have a right to have guns, that right having been repealed in 1920. If the government there wishes, it can prevent individuals from having guns.
The right in question was created by the UK and then transmitted to the US as part of English Common Law.
...
The right was created in 1689.
That is incorrect. I am pointing out the clear and intended meaning of those words.
I think there is a good argument to be made that they were better able to interpret it than anyone today can do.
I haven't formed any conclusions about the event.... Because it seems possible to me that they could have just been trying to remedy the injury to Protestants without causing reciprocal injury to non-Protestants.
No, you aren't explaining what the words mean. You are making up meanings and giving us your opinion and demanding we accept those beyond the normal meanings found in any court ruling or English dictionary.
"Arms" does not refer to guns alone.
"Suitable to their conditions" means not all arms are allowed for everyone but those arms have to relate to who they are, where they live, etc.
"Allowed by law" means those arms that they can legally have under the law even laws passed at later dates. If a type of arm is not allowed the right still exists if other arms are allowed.
That means that even if all guns are banned but they can still have pikes and knives then they right would still exist since pikes and knives are arms.
So if 2 million Englishmen still have guns that means none of them have guns?
Your argument that they have no right to have guns is nonsense.
They have guns.
They merely have to follow regulations in order to have guns.
You have already admitted that regulation is OK.
Now you are continuing to argue that regulation means they have no rights. It's nonsense on your part.
More nonsense from you.
You completely ignore the words of the right granted to them.
Let me repeat it to you.
Quote:That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
If the law no longer allows a type of arm it doesn't mean the right went away.
The right still exists exactly as written.
The problem you are having is you are arguing that the right granted in 1689 was something you made up rather then the exact words as written.
Let's look at your logic and facts.
You claim that the right to carry guns was granted in 1689.
Repeal has a very real meaning. It means something is revoked. It does not mean amended or changed. It means it goes away completely.
Since the right was created in 1689, it was created by the English Bill of Rights. I have repeatedly posted the sentence granting that right.
Here is a link to the Firearms Act of 1920.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1920/43/pdfs/ukpga_19200043_en.pdf
The only thing the bill repeals is the pistol act of 1903.
It says nothing about repealing a right granted in the EBR.
But even more clear when you read the act, it in no way takes away the possibility to have a gun. It places restrictions on owning or possessing a gun by requiring a certificate. It is quite clear that guns can be owned and carried. They are not banned from owning a gun unless designated as such by the local police when a certificate is refused and the court also refuses.
No, you are pointing out your interpretation which has nothing to do with the meaning of the words.
Are you really citing US court cases when it comes to British law and rights? Do you expect to be taken seriously when you do that?
On the contrary, that would be a very bad argument.
And there you are.
