Re: The Armed Citizen - Missouri

"David Moffitt" <weaselkiller@ prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Some Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "David Hartung" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "Some Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > > Oh, I see what the problem is. You believe guns should be ubiquitous
> > until
> > > I
> > > > can prove they shouldn't be. I believe they should be restricted
until
> > you
> > > > can prove they shouldn't be. In other words, I believe in erring on
> the
> > > side
> > > > of caution.
> > >
> > > One minor problem, the Constitution disagrees with you.
> >
> > That's a bold declaration which is unsupported by facts.
> >
> > http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/
> >
> > "In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action
with
> > respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of
> > firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of
> > firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what
> right
> > the Second Amendment protects."
> >
> > Second amendment thinking by lawyerly types is confusing. I have never
> read
> > any objective opinion that says there is an clear right to own a gun.
> There
> > might be at some time in the future if the Supreme court rules that way,
> but
> > so far it hasn't.
>
> %%%% All your decision states is that Miller could not lawfully own a
sawed
> off shotgun because he didn't pay the tax to own it. It does not address
the
> right to keep and bear arms. Your site also did not refer to the last
court
> decision------- Emerson!!   :o)
>
> >
> > SG

I'm aware of Emerson, and also the more recent (Sept 2003) Bach v. Pataki et
al which found among other things:

"In view of the weight of authority, including the present state of Supreme
Court and Second Circuit jurisprudence, the Court adopts the view that the
Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights."

http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/D02NYNC/03-07878.PDF

Like I said, it's confusing (to me at least) in the absence of a clear
Supreme Court ruling.

SG