Review Black's Handbook of American Constitutional Law (Third ed.). St. Paul: West Publishing Company. Page 543. He writes, The right to bear arms is a natural right, not created by the federal or State constitutions. Black has no note here but judging from the date of Black's Handbook, Black must have taken his wording from 35 years earlier in U S v. CRUIKSHANK. Speaking only of concealed carry, Black writes that "such a law is a police regulation, and is justified by the fact that the practice forbidden endangers the peace of society and the safety of individuals." However, Black then writes " "the citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare, if without danger to others, and for the purposes of training and efficiency in their use, but not such weapons as are only intended to be instruments of private feuds or vengeance." Note 57. When Black writes "the citizen has at all times the right to keep arms of modern warfare," Black must be using the term keep as he does in his Law Dictionary. "To have or retain in one's power or possession; not to lose or part with; to preserve or retain." Black, H. C. (1968). Black's Law Dicionary (Revised Fourth Edition ed.). (T. P. Staff, Ed.) St. Paul: West. Page 1006.
See State v. Gratz, 86L. 482, 92 A. 88. Aff'd 97 A. 964. New Jersey ruled the concealment without a permit was the crime, not concealment or actually carrying the weapon "in the hand" I am using this one in my case on the 8th. Black lists as examples, 1. English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 14 Am. Rep. 374; 2. Fife v. State, 31 Ark 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; 3. State v. Workman, 35 W. Va. 367, 14 S. E. 9, 14 L. R. A. 600; 4. State v. Wilforth, 74 Mo. 528, 41 Am. Rep. 330; 5. Haile v. State, 38 Ark. 564, 42 Am. Rep. 3. My investigation is that the concealment was designed to stop Sicilian Dirks and small revolvers used in crime (affray)but not cavalry revolvers. Under these cases all the full size police and military issue weapons would be legal to carry. Beretta 92, 1911, Glock 22, Sig 220's &c. Considering the amount of cops that carry the J-frame, the Kahr and the mini Glocks this becomes very interesting. Jay Factor -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2009 3:01 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 66, Issue 2 Send Firearmsregprof mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Firearmsregprof digest..." Today's Topics: 1. In hand (Greg Jacobs) 2. RE: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 65, Issue 16 (rufx2) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 17:15:36 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Greg Jacobs <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: In hand Message-ID: <32352517.1241216136767.javamail.r...@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Might I sugest a colloquialism or little used term? http://www.dictionary.net/in+hand >9. Personal possession; ownership; hence, control; direction; management; -- usually in the plural. ``Receiving in hand one year's >tribute.'' --Knolles. ***GRJ*** ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Sat, 2 May 2009 01:44:16 -0400 From: "rufx2" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 65, Issue 16 Message-ID: <ca4bd63fc0074c7683ebd4720f423...@talon> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" U Gene - No as to your precise question on l. r. articles. Nicely done on the passive encouragement ... Of course you are correct in reminding all of administrative remedy exhaustion and its sequelae.. and the like should hopefully be vetted for non-souterless, er, fruitlessness review. Rufx2/ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 3:02 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 65, Issue 16 Message: 1 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:46:28 -0700 From: "Volokh, Eugene" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: Literature on judicial review of administrative gun possession/carry permit decisions Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Do any of you by any chance know of any law review articles on judicial review of administrative gun possession/carry permit decisions - how it actually operates, whether a state or federal constitutional right to bear arms requires independent judicial review in such cases, and the like? Thanks, Eugene ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Firearmsregprof mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. End of Firearmsregprof Digest, Vol 66, Issue 2 ********************************************** _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
