Posted on 01/26/2003 8:07:46 AM PST by FSPress
LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- A man was sentenced Friday to 2½ years in prison for owning guns while under a protective order -- a limitation on gun rights that an appeals court held was constitutionally acceptable.
The U.S. Supreme Court last June declined to hear arguments that Timothy Emerson should have been allowed to keep his guns under the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."
Emerson was indicted after the restraining order was issued during his divorce in 1998. He owned several rifles and a handgun at the time.
A federal judge dismissed the charges, but the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision in 2001, ruling that an individual's right to bear arms could be restricted in some circumstances.
In Emerson's case and a similar one the Supreme Court also rejected, the Bush administration told the Supreme Court that the Second Amendment protects an individual as well as the collective right to gun ownership. That position reversed decades-old policy on the Second Amendment.
The administration, though, did not support Emerson's appeal, saying the Second Amendment right was still subject to reasonable restrictions.
The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case sent it back to the district court, where Emerson was convicted in October.
Emerson's attorney, David Guinn, argued at trial his client shouldn't be punished for owning guns that were legal once his divorce was completed. He plans to appeal the sentence.
Emerson had faced a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine.
How can a protective order mandate that a person sell his provately-owned property against his will?
How can one fail to see that this can be easily expanded in some really vicious ways?
"The Fifth Amendment provides, among other things, that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. This court has held that, in prosecutions by a state, presentment or indictment by a grand jury may give way to informations at the instance of a public officer." -- US Supreme Court, Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams
Beg your falsehoods.
The Pre-amble to the BOR is all the incorperation it requires. Because pin-heads keep trying to undercut it, they even added a couple of Amendments to try and clarify it for people just like you. Still you refuse to see.
Let's look at it this way. Who owns you? I claim that I have ownership of myself. Keeping myself alive is protecting my "property". Unless you advocate having someone in government breath, eat, and defecate for me, then protecting my life is something very personal that it is my responsibility to see to. A firearm is one of the better tools out there to use for that protection. If you deny me those tools, then you assume ownership and responsibility for me. I don't need your, or anyone elses permission to do so. No permits nor licensing.
As I am NOT you g@dd@mn slave, you can leave my firearms alone. Reasonable restrictions? By whose standard? The Majorities? what if the Majority decided you needed to die to protect the rest of us? Would you be so sanguine about it then?
False.
The Preamble to The Bill of RightsCongress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
The Constitution delegates powers to the federal government. The Preamble states that the Bill of Rights was written to prevent misconstruction or abuse of those delegated federal powers.
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." -- Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 1833
Because they control 100% of something else.
That'll be the day.
The fact that 97 senators voted for this crap is proof positive that laws are anything but rational. This is simply 97 senators running to the rescue of the anecdotal damsel in distress.
It makes no sense, but the first one to point that out has a dozen anti-gun reporters shoving a camera in their face and demanding, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
Implied incorperation no matter what your legal fictions implies in their penumbras. Or did you miss that whole part of my post?
Either way, you advocate slavery for us all, even if only by degrees. Or will you deny that as well? What else would you call it if not slavery?
Beg that question.
That's pretty bigoted of you. It's okay to bigoted against men though, isn't it?
Not begging in anyone's mind other than a gun-grabbing socialist like yourself.
I didn't mean it to be bigoted. I see it as simply an observation of fact.
Hear, hear!
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.