Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Pulled over and stopped at a DUI checkpoint
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Billybob" data-source="post: 2237418" data-attributes="member: 1294"><p>Judge rules Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms merely a privilege</p><p></p><p>[Judge Cummings' rationale is especially . . . interesting:</p><p></p><p> "The Court is of the opinion that the ban does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” the ruling states. “The right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights.</p><p></p><p>But wait a second--"by those not disqualified from the exercise" of a Constitutional right? <strong>If the government can arbitrarily deem some citizens "unworthy" of a right, and "disqualify" them from its exercise, how can it even be a right?</strong> What distinguishes it from a mere privilege, to be granted or denied at whim? If 18-year-olds are unworthy of the right (or privilege) of self-defense, who else might be so deemed some time in the future? He continues:</p><p></p><p> It is within the purview of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the relative policy considerations and to make decisions as to the age of the customer to whom those licensed by the federal government may sell handguns and handgun ammunition...]</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/judge-rules-constitutionally-guaranteed-right-to-bear-arms-merely-a-privilege" target="_blank">http://www.examiner.com/article/judge-rules-constitutionally-guaranteed-right-to-bear-arms-merely-a-privilege</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Billybob, post: 2237418, member: 1294"] Judge rules Constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms merely a privilege [Judge Cummings' rationale is especially . . . interesting: "The Court is of the opinion that the ban does not run afoul of the Second Amendment to the Constitution,” the ruling states. “The right to bear arms is enjoyed only by those not disqualified from the exercise of the Second Amendment rights. But wait a second--"by those not disqualified from the exercise" of a Constitutional right? [B]If the government can arbitrarily deem some citizens "unworthy" of a right, and "disqualify" them from its exercise, how can it even be a right?[/B] What distinguishes it from a mere privilege, to be granted or denied at whim? If 18-year-olds are unworthy of the right (or privilege) of self-defense, who else might be so deemed some time in the future? He continues: It is within the purview of Congress, not the courts, to weigh the relative policy considerations and to make decisions as to the age of the customer to whom those licensed by the federal government may sell handguns and handgun ammunition...] [url]http://www.examiner.com/article/judge-rules-constitutionally-guaranteed-right-to-bear-arms-merely-a-privilege[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Pulled over and stopped at a DUI checkpoint
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom