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 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.
>

More than that, it is an inalienable right, not subject to court decree.

-*MORT*-