Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
They ask the question in the decision. That if so many bans and infringements are present, then how the hell are militiaman supposed to arm themselves?

In the summation they state:
The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty.

Any Commerce clause regulation that made arming ones self impossible is unConstitutional. Like I've been trying to tell you for years. Hence my constant repeating of the Jefferson quote:
"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe & precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." Thomas Jefferson, letter to Wilson Cary Nicholas, Sept. 7, 1803.

If one theory decreases individual Rights or liberty, the government was to choose the other interpretation that protects Rights.

You just don't get that.

565 posted on 03/09/2007 2:58:12 PM PST by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 561 | View Replies ]


To: Dead Corpse
"Any Commerce clause regulation that made arming ones self impossible is unConstitutional."

If a Commerce Clause regulation is unconstitutional, of course it's not allowed. Congress cannot prohibit the interstate commerce of all newspapers or magazines either.

Can you name any commerce that Congress cannot regulate? No, you cannot. Then what in the world is your problem with my "position"?

574 posted on 03/09/2007 3:11:06 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson