Need advice: run in with Kilt (feather?) Police

**sirdaniel1975** · 9th June 08, 09:46 AM

Almost two years ago here at X-marks I gave a solution that is more historically
correct. Here's the thread:

Plant Badge: heraldry for common Scots

**michaelbeeman** · 9th June 08, 09:51 AM

This morning I knew nothing about this issue, at all. That's one of the reasons I so enjoy this forum!

Originally Posted by Ronusan

... Lord of Pheasanton, High Protector of Hennery

I would think a most Noble Station, M'Lord.

**Dukeof Kircaldy** · 9th June 08, 10:16 AM

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Deil the Yin View Post
I just wanted to chime in in support of Ronusan: I'm no heraldry lawyer, but it would seem to me that, according to the posts of our knowledgeable friends here at the X, this chappy was well out of place in making a scene over your bonnet! Even if I had thought the same thing about your bonnet, I hope I would have had the good sense and common decency to my fellow man to not call you out in public as he did in an attempt to berate. This pointe alone boils my blood! It is ignorant and arrogant and smacks of British Imperialism, which in my opinion is the absolute opposite of Gaelic/Celtic culture! Needless to say the fellow didn' t know what he was talking about, and it was certainly not his place to question your dignity or honour.
So guid on ye for carrying on our Gaelic heritage.

Originally Posted by cajunscot

Please, let's not Brit-bash here. These customs being discussed deal with Scottish heraldic customs which were in place long before the Union of the Crowns and the creation of the United Kingdom.

T.

Not to mention the person in question who berated Ronusan was an Aussie.

Anyway, remind such a person who would give you grief over such a thing that you have a right to bear arms granted to you in the Constitution, which should throw him for a loop.

**CelticRanger66** · 9th June 08, 11:28 AM

The interesting thing is here in America the wearing of eagle feather's are by federal law reserved for Native Americans only it is illegal for anyone else to wear them here. I have a few quail feathers I wear with my tam on occassion. The last time anyone said something to me I just gave them my "Dirty Harry/Mean Drill Sergeant " look and they walked away!

**macwilkin** · 9th June 08, 11:37 AM

[QUOTE=Dukeof Kircaldy;549996]

Not to mention the person in question who berated Ronusan was an Aussie.

Anyway, remind such a person who would give you grief over such a thing that you have a right to bear arms granted to you in the Constitution, which should throw him for a loop.

Uhh...that's a different type of arms.

T.

**Dukeof Kircaldy** · 9th June 08, 11:48 AM

Are you sure? Stephen Halbrook frequently quotes Webster's comment about

"To bear arms, as in a coat."

in his stuff on the Second Amendment (e.g., Defining The Second Amendment, The Tampa Tribune, June 9, 2008). In fact, that quote runs through most of the literature on the debate courtesy of Mr. Halbrook. Webster was talking about coats of arms. So, why not muddy the waters up even more than they are now?

DEMAND YOUR COAT OF ARMS!

[QUOTE=cajunscot;550064]

Originally Posted by Dukeof Kircaldy

Uhh...that's a different type of arms.

T.

**Galician** · 9th June 08, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by CelticRanger66

The interesting thing is here in America the wearing of eagle feather's are by federal law reserved for Native Americans only it is illegal for anyone esle to wear them here. I have a few quail feathers I wear with my tam on occassion. The last time anyone said something to me I just gave them my "Dirty Harry/Mean Drill Sergeant " look and they walked away!

Yes, this thread had me wondering if any clan chiefs who came here wearing their eagle feathers could be arrested and deported for violating those laws.

**macwilkin** · 9th June 08, 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by Dukeof Kircaldy

Are you sure? Stephen Halbrook frequently quotes Webster's comment about

"To bear arms, as in a coat."

in his stuff on the Second Amendment (e.g., Defining The Second Amendment, The Tampa Tribune, June 9, 2008). In fact, that quote runs through most of the literature on the debate courtesy of Mr. Halbrook. Webster was talking about coats of arms. So, why not muddy the waters up even more than they are now?

DEMAND YOUR COAT OF ARMS!

Not quite. From the article you quoted:

Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" - soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

So they're not talking heraldry here, but weaponry. And since we're getting into the 2nd Amendment and firearms ownership, I'm going to stop right here, out of respect for forum rules.

If my fellow Mods feel the need to delete this line of discussion, please feel free to do so.

Regards,

Todd

**Dukeof Kircaldy** · 9th June 08, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by cajunscot

Not quite. From the article you quoted:

Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" - soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

So they're not talking heraldry here, but weaponry. And since we're getting into the 2nd Amendment and firearms ownership, I'm going to stop right here, out of respect for forum rules.

If my fellow Mods feel the need to delete this line of discussion, please feel free to do so.

Regards,

Todd

Both types of arms can be borne. In fact, there are loads of historic instances of phrases about people bearing arms in the heraldic sense.

Actually, Halbrook is misquoting Webster and has just made a big goof as this discussion is proving. His comment that "Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat"" is incorrect as nobility could also carry arms in a coat.

As in a coat of arms.

Which is perfectly on topic. In fact, Todd, we are arguing this out in two topics which deal specifically with coats of arms.

**McMurdo** · 9th June 08, 02:16 PM

Gentlemen whether Halbrook is misquoting Webster or not is not the issue, in this thread the arms being discussed are not the same as in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Any further discussion down this path will result in either the locking of this thread, infractions for members or both, you've been warned gents.