Re: The Armed Citizen - Missouri

"Some Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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.

%%%%% The SCOTUS refused to review Emerson so the ruling stands that it is
an individual right.

>
> SG
>
>