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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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." > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256680 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
