Re: Creditors Getting Right To Invade People's Homes To Collect Debts
- From: TPS <theron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 17:17:19 -0800 (PST)
On Dec 31 2008, 3:09 pm, "DGDevin" <dgde...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Are atom bombs 'arms'? What about biological weapons?
What does the Second say about either?
Nothing. And that, I believe, is the point.
The constitution does not tell us what is, and what is not an arm.
Despite the arguments of "strict constructionists", the Constitution
does not spell out exactly how it must be implemented. This is just
one illustration of why it must be interpreted, allowing for
So which is more reasonable? That the Framers meant the sort of weapons
commonly available to citizens at the time--i.e. rifles, shotguns and
handguns--and thus the equivalent of such weapons are covered by the 2nd
Amendment today? Or that because they didn't specify in fine detail which
sort of firearms they meant that today's govt. is free to ban or restrict
the possession of any firearms including those directly analogous to those
owned by the colonists at the time of the revolution?
I think the answer lies somewhere between. Judges exist in order to
*reason* through these issues. Their decision should certainly be
informed by an understanding of the historical context in which the
law was written (i.e. the non-existence of automatic weapons when the
Const. was written), but that doesn't simply give them the answer
about what to do *today*. It's less about the writer's specific
expectations about how the law would play out than about the overall
purpose of the law, and how that purpose fits in a contemporary
context. Today's government is, in fact, free to ban or restrict the
possession of any firearms. As someone else pointed out, the don't
allow grenade launchers or nuclear weapons in the hands of the general
public. That doesn't mean the courts *should* ban every single weapon
out there, or that the people would abide their ruling if they did,
but their rulings make the laws and define the rights.
- Prev by Date: Re: Okay, so, everything is not okay.
- Next by Date: Re: Creditors Getting Right To Invade People's Homes To Collect Debts
- Previous by thread: Re: Creditors Getting Right To Invade People's Homes To Collect Debts
- Next by thread: Re: Creditors Getting Right To Invade People's Homes To Collect Debts