word
C. Hatton Humphrey wrote:
> My read on the second amendment, which reads "A
well regulated
> Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of
> the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." is this -
> the text includes both the words State and People. It
does not say
> that the State has the right to arm People, it says
that People have
> the right to bear arms.
>
> Additionally, the fourth amendment reads, "The
right of the people to
> be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against
> unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no
> Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or
> affirmation, and particularly describing the place to
be searched, and
> the persons or things to be seized." which to me
says that unless
> there is probable cause, the state has no right to
search or seize my
> property. A weapon is my own property.
>
> Finally, the fourteenth amendment states, "All
persons born or
> naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction
> thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein
> they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall
> abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States;
> nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property,
> without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its
> jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
which means that,
> along with the fourth amendment, I have the right to
hold (bear) my
> property unless given due process.
>
> As written today, that means that I have the right to
own a weapon as
> my personal property. Only if I break a standing law
of the state or
> the State is there probable cause for it's removal from
my posession,
> and only then after due process has been served.
>
> Hatton
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Gruss Gott
<grussgott gmail.com> wrote:
>> So this big case is coming before the SCOTUS today.
For me, I would
>> say that, as the constitution is written, the
federal gov't DOES NOT
>> protect *an individuals* right to bear arms.
Technically it would
>> seem that's a matter left up to the states.
Whether that's the right
>> choice or not I'm not claiming, but technically I
don't think the
>> constitution protects the right for individuals to
bear arms.
>>
>> -- --
>> WASHINGTON - The District of Columbia is asking
the Supreme Court to
>> preserve the capital's ban on handguns in a major
case over the
>> meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to
keep and bear arms."
>>
>> A Washington resident who wants to keep handguns
at home for
>> protection is challenging the 32-year-old ban as a
violation of his
>> constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in
Washington agreed
>> that the city cannot ban handguns.
>>
>> --
>> "A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate
a meaningless
>> interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to
an otherwise dull
>> day."
>>
>>
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~|
AdobeŽ ColdFusionŽ 8 software 8 is the most important and
dramatic release to date
Get the Free Trial
ht
tp://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w
Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups
/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256745
Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/s
ubscribe.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/un
subscribe.cfm?user=22184.15789.5
|
