the term ‘profiling’ could be construed to be the practical application of such trends...
That’s what I’m referring to.
Its got to happen. Whether they say so or not, profiling, as in the above, is a fact of life no matter who you are. Hell, liberals are better at it than most conservatives. For the most part they are the race baiters.
>Its got to happen.
Then my questions to you:
1 — How does ‘profiling’ give the police the right to selectively enforce the law, if it in fact does?
2 — How can the State Supreme Court make this ruling considering that the State Constitution says, in Art 2, Sec 6:
“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.”
(Note that this is a list and that the qualifier ‘lawful’ applies only to “hunting purposes” and “other activities” NOT to the purpose of security & defense; further, the Constitution recognizes security and defense as inherent rights in Art 2, Sec 4.)
3 — Considering that the Supreme Court is not able to legally (legitimately) alter the Constitution, as per the Constitution’s own Amendment process [Art 19], is not any such attempt an violation of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution? (Specifically, the second sentence of Section 1 prohibits a State from violating Due Process.)
4 — Considering the previous, is not such an attempt a Conspiracy Against Rights? ( http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/718/usc_sec_18_00000241——000-.html )