Trial will debate 2nd Amendment rights

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | January 6, 2007 | Bob Unruh

[Turbopilot]

Haven't you read the Constitution??

2nd Amendment: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear 18th-century Arms, shall not be infringed.

That is what it says, right? Or at least what emanates from its penumbrae?

</s>

[MACVSOG68]

The prosecutor will simply ask if the First Amendment guarantees a right to cry fire in a crowded theater to illustrate that while our BOR is sacred, it does not guarantee unfettered rights. Reasonable laws are enacted to ensure the rights of all of a society's citizens, and that means that while the 2d Amendment guarantees the right to have arms, laws can be enacted to ensure that that right does not endanger or infringe of the rights of others.

[Lurking Libertarian]

then let the judge rule whether or not the Bill of Rights can be discussed in a federal courtroom these days. Oh, God forbid! /sarcasm

Legal issues are decided by the judge, not by the jury. The question of whether the law against possessing machine guns is constitutional is one the defense can raise before the judge; if they lose, they can raise it on appeal. But our system, as currently set up, does not permit juries to hear arguments on the constitutionality of laws.

[Little Ray]

Yes. They can carried and operated by a single invidual. It might be argued that crew-served weapons are not "arms" but an automatic rifle or assualt rifle are definitely "arms."

[beltfed308]

When I was in S. Africa visiting I was shocked that a license was needed for a tv. I hope this guy wins as a simple phrase like "shall not be infringed" is pretty clear.

[mountn man]

Where's your howitzer? Jefferson might ask if he were to be brought back today............

Jefferson might ask where's your 100 megaton ICBM. /s>

[mugs99]

when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns

When the first amendment was written, there were no such thing as computers. Does that mean we have no first amendment rights here on FreeRepublic?
.

[Little Ray]

Sorry. The comparison doesn't work.
There is no prior restraint - they can't gag you to prevent you from yelling fire.
And the charge will not be for exercising your First Amendment rights but for the harm and hazard caused by shouting fire, creating a public disturbance, etc.

[labette]

Uh oh.
Ya beat me by almost four minutes.

[knarf]

A useful link

[DBrow]

"when the Second Amendment was written, there were no such thing as machine guns."

Then FedGov can censor anything you type on a keyboard or into a microphone!

[Red Badger]

Indeed, he might! My finacial situation precludes my purchase of one though........

[TalonDJ]

There are writings of the founders that indicate 'arms' covers artillery.

[taxcontrol]

Please folks, understand the parlance of the time of the founders.

Arms meant firearms that could be carried by a person.

Ordinance is the term that was used when referring to weapons, such as cannons that required more than one person to operate. As such, a howitzer would be ordinance, not arms.

[Self Ruler]

Somethings to ponder:

The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000. The accidental deaths caused by physicians are 120,000 per year. The accidental death rate per physician is 0.171. (These statistics are courtesy of the U.S. Dep't. of Health & Human Services - I am told...but not confirmed by me.)

The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500. The accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188. (This information courtesy of the FBI - I am told...but not confirmed by me.)

Therefore, if true, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners. I guess you could say that "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

Please alert your friends to this very alarming threat.

Statistics on lawyers have been withheld for fear that the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

(I enjoyed a laugh when I read this...thought some of you might enjoy one, too.)

[TalonDJ]

laws can be enacted to ensure that that right does not endanger or infringe of the rights of others.

This guy did not SHOOT anyone. So explain how he was endangering them? People are more endangered someone drives a car than by whatever arms are locked up at home.

[TalonDJ]

I stand corrected. They did not just mean 'fire' arms though. It covered other carried arms like swords and such.

[DBrow]

"Arms meant firearms that could be carried by a person."

Nope, if you were granted a letter of marque and reprisal you could get whatever armament it took to get the job done, including big bore cannon that it took four mules to haul to your ship, and any kind of load for them from ballistic to explosive and including cannister charges and chain shot.

You could in fact have al that stuff without the letter of marque.

[pierrem15]

Kind of funny how there is a 'penumbra' covering your 'rights' to rub your genitalia against whatever you choose, but your right to bear arms or self-defense is not even considered a fully incorporated right under the 14th and 15th amendment.

Nor (under CFR) is there any longer a right to free speech or free association.

We're governed by wankers and idiots and despot wannabees.

[ctdonath2]

There is no "Class III license".
There is no way for a citizen to get a new (i.e.: post-'86) MG.
There is no way for a citizen to register an old (i.e.: pre-'86) MG that is not already registered.

There is a tax + paperwork for transferring MGs that are already registered. Since the number of registered MGs is severely limited, and law 922(o) forbids new ones, the few that are available (used and >20 years old) are horribly expensive (as in >10x "normal" price). For all practical purposes save collecting/investment (a used M16 runs >$12,000; gov't pays about $700 for a new one), MGs are illegal.

Know what you're talking about before suggesting someone else STFU.

Oh, and that nifty high-tech stuff you're using to read this sentence? didn't exist in the 1700s, so you have no "right" to use it - cough up your $4000 FCC license fee.