Posted on 01/10/2007 12:44:45 PM PST by looscnnn
Also, crying "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire is not speech it is the equivalent of assault. Crying "fire" when there is a fire is necessary speech. Being silent when there is a fire in a crowded theater can be considered negligent malfeasance. None of the above is political speech which was the target of the first amendment. Just as the second amendment is about individuals bearing arms for homeland defense. In the 1A congress is prohibited from making any law, etc. But in the 2A the INDIVIDUAL right is spelled out and assumed to exist.
Hey retard,STFU
I'm pointing out that all of our rights guaranteed by the Constitution have reasonable curbs to permit society to safely conduct business. If this particular law is too restrictive, I suspect a judge will so rule. But licensing and use requirements for firearms exist in every jurisdiction. Most do not infringe on the 2d Amendment.
They all infringe on the 2nd. Note that the 2nd acknowledge that it's a right, not a priviledge, so alllicencing schemes are repugnant to the Constitution and bogus.
As a dealer, not common citizen. It doesn't cost $4000, and all the ensuing compliance costs push it much higher - IF you can even get one. Even then, it doesn't help much unless you're talking large volume, as you're stuck with pre-'86 stuff unless you can get cozy (i.e.: demonstrate need via department letterhead) with military or police.
Just throwing this out there...
The right to bear arms... could be interpreted as covering only the arms that are normaly carried.
LOL - that is what I get for not checking the spell checker.
So yes, not allowing people to appeal to the BoR for remedy is now part of modern "jurisprudence". Justice has nothing to do with our legal system these days...
Can't it be used for jury nullification?
That argument keeps popping up, and keeps getting knocked down.
The Founding Fathers made it very clear, both in law and in commentary, that absolutely no limitation thereon was intended. Note that the 2nd Amendment says "shall not be infringed" but says nothing indicating any limitations.
Remember, it was written by guys who owned working cannons decorating their front lawns - and used them to eject tyrants.
That is how I found this article.
Also, back then, citizens owned ships mounted with cannons. So technically, anything smaller than a fully loaded Destroyer is covered by the Second Amendment.
Except for the quotes from the Founders saying "every terrible implement of the soldier is be every Americans birthright".
What is unreasonable about a law abiding American citizen owning the weapon that he used in the service of his country? Owning an M16 is perfectly consistent with the second amendment. In fact, we should follow Israels lead and take our M16's home with us when we leave active duty.
Your prior restraint argument is going nowhere.
Not in all jurisdictions. Vermont & Alaska have none. Georgia and many other states only require a permit to carry concealed. Licensing to _own_ is actually only in a minority of jurisdictions.
_Use_ may be regulated, but mostly amounts to "don't do anything stupid/dangerous" in most areas.
Jefferson and Madison both agreed that the only limits on Individual Rights were the equal Rights of others. My Right to own a machine gun/tank/F-18E in no way interferes with any of your Rights. Period. End of story.
LOL, now tell him what you really think about him.
Did he appeal? should have. Exactly what appeals courts are for.
A howitzer, cannon, etc. can be operated by one person, not efficiently though. So therefore they are not ordinance.
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.