Posted on 02/10/2014 12:09:17 PM PST by Texas Fossil
You might think the question would be settled by now, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends outside the home.
We may soon get an answer. Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases, dealing with restrictions on the ability of minors to possess weapons in public, hinge on the difference between the right to “keep” a gun and a right “bear” one. The National Rifle Association thinks the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review. The justices are expected to discuss the cases next week and may then decide whether to grant review.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Rights of the individual are not enumerated in the U. S. Constitution.
The rights of the federal government are enumerated. Every other right which might surface was supposed to belong to the people.
So, this ongoing argument is moot, because the federal government was only granted certain limited powers.
Of course, if the people do not act to preserve their nearly unlimited rights, government will inevitably step in to "fix" that.
The framers knew this.
Nowhere.
You have a lot of supporters in Texas.
Our experience with Revolution was just over 175 years ago. Too short a time to have fully forgot what it was about.
Yes.
Like Texas Still IS! We like our guns and WILL KEEP THEM!
Dred Scott vs Sanford.
What the SCOTUS thought about gun control in the pre Civil War era.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.
Tiresome, absolutely. As you said tho, in the end it matters precious little what legislators or lawyers think. Either you just knuckle under or fight. This is what our forefathers did in the face of endless oppression. Like them we’re not looking for a fight, In fact its wise to prevent one if possible. Tyrants never seem to understand this grace and continue pushing past the point of no return....to their own demise. Very little positive comes from armed conflict esp. one thats protracted.
I am in Texas! LOL!
In Pa. we believe the same. “Come and Take Them”
I’d rather everyone just get back to work and leave us the hell alone, BUT, if they want to push the issue.....by all means, bring it!
that counts
t
The problem is, are we still living under the rule of law?
—
I wrote this on 28Jan2009:
Obama’s Bill Hands ACORN $5.2 Billion Bailout
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2173300/posts
—
To: Sammy67
Normal lying Democrat strategy to see that they never loose another election.
Spelled- VOTER FRAUD
—
“Welcome to New Kenya”
“Where the law of the jungle has replace the Law of the Land”
23 posted on Wed 28 Jan 2009 06:42:31 AM CST by Texas Fossil
Good. The ComDems had best be careful for what they wish.
“...right to “bear” arms for self-defense...”
I’d like to know where they get the idea that the Second Amendment is only about self-defense?
Sorry I should have checked that. hee hee hee
That, too, is my interpretation. I believe that was the intent of those who wrote it.
Unfortunately, those who lust for power prefer to reverse that thinking. We need to elect to office people who believe as we do.
I’m sure Websters dictionary defines the word why ask SCOTUS to educate a moron!
Unfortunately, the only people or politicians I have heard express that sentiment were Ron and Rand Paul and Gary Johnson.
Advocating that any such people actually be elected to any national office that matters, even on this forum, is suicide.
It might be slow, it might be fast, but it is suicide nonetheless.
Ugh... I just threw up in my mouth.
Their arguments are that ridiculous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
