>As for the 2nd Amendment, I don’t understand what is so hard to understand about “shall not be infringed.” I don’t care if he is a convicted felon, once he has done his time, he has the right to keep and bear arms. Period.
So you’re for a strict reading of the Constitution regarding the Right to Keep and Bear arms, regardless of what courts are saying; yet opposed to a strict reading of the Constitution in regards to the qualification for the President. Gotcha.
FWIW, I agree with that arms position; an ex-felon, having served his sentence, should have *FULL* rights and privileges restored.
>Very few people agree with me, even in Arizona, where ‘constitutional carry’ doesn’t extend to ex-felons. Nor is there any chance that I could get the courts to agree with me.
I shouldn’t be too sure about that; I live one state over, New Mexico, and our Constitution has two particularly interesting sections:
Art II, Sec. 4. [Inherent rights.]
All persons are born equally free, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
among which are the rights of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring,
possessing and protecting property, and of seeking and obtaining safety and happiness.
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense,
for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein
shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall
regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.
So, strictly speaking, ANY state law prohibiting any NM Citizen from either owning or carrying a weapon is illegitimate according to the State Constitution. Sadly, the State pays as much attention to the state Constitution as the FedGov does its Constitution; this does not, however, mean that there is no way a court will agree with you.
>If you have spare cash, please give first to Jesse Kelly before spending it filing lawsuits you cannot win.
I have no real cash to spare. Why would you say that I couldn’t win my upcoming lawsuit?
The one law in particular I’m thinking of challenging is NMSA 30-7-2.4, which prohibits firearms on university grounds.
Read this [ http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=FifLink&t=document-frame.htm&l=query&iid=6c1804dd.55b72e94.0.0&q=%5BGroup%20%2730-7-2.4%27%5D ] and tell me how that can at all be justified under the above cited Constitutional sections.
Oh, and before I forget, I can also raise about seven kinds of shit with the following law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html
“So you’re for a strict reading of the Constitution regarding the Right to Keep and Bear arms, regardless of what courts are saying; yet opposed to a strict reading of the Constitution in regards to the qualification for the President. Gotcha.”
Nope. I’m saying the original intent of the Founders in writing that the President must be a “natural born citizen” is met by Obama if he was born in Hawaii. There is no doubt that under English common law, Obama would qualify as a ‘natural born subject’, and that is the concept the Founders were thinking of when they wrote “natural born citizen”.
Original intent. Not mine, but theirs.