View Single Post
  #1618  
Old 08-30-2021, 3:58 PM
Kukuforguns's Avatar
Kukuforguns Kukuforguns is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Los Angeles County
Posts: 656
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by morrcarr67 View Post
Bestow can and does have varying meaning.

be·stow
/bəˈstō/

verb
verb: bestow; 3rd person present: bestows; past tense: bestowed; past participle: bestowed; gerund or present participle: bestowing

confer or present (an honor, right, or gift).

con·fer
/kənˈfər/

verb
verb: confer; 3rd person present: confers; past tense: conferred; past participle: conferred; gerund or present participle: conferring

1.
grant or bestow (a title, degree, benefit, or right).

grant
/ɡrant/

verb
verb: grant; 3rd person present: grants; past tense: granted; past participle: granted; gerund or present participle: granting

1.
agree to give or allow (something requested) to.
2.
agree or admit to (someone) that (something) is true.

So, when you're reading this quote

Quote:
This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.
I would say that they are saying and agreeing that the Second Amendment is an Individual's right to bear arms.
Imagine you are a lawyer. And your job is to clearly, and unambiguously persuade a court. Why would you use word that is, at best, ambiguous?

Moreover, your analysis is ridiculous. Let us substitute the least horrible definition of bestow (agree that (something) is true) for bestow in the quote:

Quote:
This Court has squarely addressed, and held, that the Second Amendment agrees that it is true that an individual has a right to bear arms, including a handgun, for self-defense.
The Second Amendment does not agree to anything. It limits the Federal Government's (and states by incorporation) power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. In your translation, you changed who was bestowing from the Second Amendment to the Court. I understand we don't like criticizing people doing important work. I respect that the attorney is doing this pro bono. I am not one of the cheerleaders that believes only the right people should bring these suits.

With all that being said, why are you trying to defend the indefensible? The quoted statement is clearly at odds with what the Court wrote (a pre-existing right) and what the Second Amendment plainly states. If the attorney had asked any of the many attorneys who specialize in 2A work or even the many more attorneys who are interested in the subject, he would have been advised to revise that statement. Such lawyers passionately want this lawsuit to succeed. Asking for help is one of the advantages to working with other lawyers and one of the disadvantages of being a solo.
__________________
WTB: Magazines for S&W M&P 9c
Reply With Quote