A question for this group--

[jimmy the one]

50. jto checkmates the pretzel logic

tortoise: Notice 3 separate paragraphs? That is because Rawle was following the rules of English writing – when you have a change or modification to the train of thought you are pursuing, open a new paragraph.

You footstick again, due your inexperience with Wm Rawle. Unfortunately for you, Rawle footnoted a paragraph you refer to above, with a quote from englishman edward coke, who lived circa 1600.

Rawle, 1825: An assemblage of persons with arms, for an unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace, If he refused he would be liable to imprisonment.8

footnote 8: 3 Coke's Inst. 160. Hawkins, b. 1. c. 60.
pg 70 - 71: http://www.portagepub.com/dl/causouth/rawle.pdf

Rawle's footnote 8 is referring to Sir Edward Coke, an englishman who lived circa 1600, who published rules & regs regarding english law. So it's evident that Rawle was citing how englishmen would've handled the 'carrying of arms abroad'.
Checkmate on tortoise.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/coke-selected-writings-of-sir-edward-coke-vol-i--5/simple

tortoise: Notice he didn't talk about an assemblage in a foreign land in the first instance, so there is no reason to assume he was discussing foreign travel in the second instance. As a matter of fact, Rawle's precision in his writing would have led him to specify if he was using a word in other than the common accepted definition.

You footstick again. Rawle indeed denoted he was referring to foreign travel, ie england, by the footnote to Coke.
Here is the passage from Coke, from my paper to the scotus justices I was telling you about:

Jimmy the one wrote: .. in this particular paragraph, Rawle cited Edward Coke's 3rd Institutes of English Law, circa 1600: "Nor to bring force in affray of the country.. that if any doth enter into, or detaine with force any houses, lands, or tenements, the party grieved may have a writ upon his statute, directed to the sherif, by force of which writ, if the sherif find the force, then if any after proclamation made, (which proclamation is by reasonable construction to be made for avoiding of bloodshed) shall disobey, or if it be found by inquiry [??word uncertain], the sherif is to seize their armes and weapons, and to arrest and take the offenders and commit them to prison".
(There were several other similar decrees on carrying arms in England, by Coke, on the very page this was copied from. Rawle also cited Englishman Wm Hawkins - 1824, similarly worded english law).

Rawle was citing what could happen, by law, to unlawfully armed Englishmen, according to Edward Coke circa 1600's - not excluding foreigners or Americans if they went specifically to England and assembled with arms for unlawful purposes.... any armed assemblages or single individuals could be from any governments, such as Frenchmen visiting London. This applies to our argument in that Justice Scalia cannot single out the American RKBA as what Rawle was referring to, since Rawle's referring to Coke clearly marks the reference as English.
Note I cannot find an link to the exact coke quote this morning & have to go. Here is a link which might suffice, chap IV: http://files.libertyfund.org/files/911/0462-01_LFeBk.pdf