Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The meaning of the Second Amendment (One Perspective) [View all]jimmy the one
(2,714 posts)hans: In the context of Memorial and Remonstrance, as well as 2A, "free state" means something more than simply one of the states of the union, rather it means a non-tyrannical state in which the people are able to hold the government to its proper sphere, preventing the types of abuses mentioned in Memorial and Remonstrance.
At least you explain your reasoning this time, rather than assuming people mind readers to the obscure. We were supposed to grasp all that in an instant, eh, when you simply said a free state meant 'more than just a state of the union'.
What you contend cannot be disproven, since 'free state' or 'free State' is ambiguous whether meaning individual state or nation politic or the gun lobby's revisionist definition above, the bones of contention.
Here's what hans refers to, readers decide whether Madison was referring to Virginia or USA when he wrote 'free State', or just a 'non tyrannical govt'. Note Madison did refer to Va as commonwealth, not that binding.
James Madison 1785 To the Honorable General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments
We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill..
Taking out the descriptive clause it boils to this: We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth .. are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it..
So hans argues ambiguity to his own side of course; I think madison could have intentionally been ambiguous when including 'free state' so as to include both the individual states as well as the nation politic, but doubt he intended 'free State' solely per your subjective definition above. A Madison 'double entendre'' would help the militia interpretation tho, & scalia's interpretation of only 'nation politic' would collapse.