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 <[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:256745 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
