Re: Creditors Getting Right To Invade People's Homes To Collect Debts

RichL wrote:
west <west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Stephen Cowell wrote:
"west" <west@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:495e9153$0$7343$a726171b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stephen Cowell wrote:
"DGDevin" <dgdevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
....

What makes you think you can't own a grenade laucher? Or a tank,
or an artillery piece? I've known people who owned all those
things entirely legally.
*Exactly*... there are rules and restrictions.

Isn't it clear?

How are those "rules and restrictions" defined in the Second?
My point exactly... they aren't. We've been ignoring
the Second Amendment for a long time.
__
Steve
..


Your point is moot.

Congress and several presidents have ignored it. "We" haven't.

In a representative democracy, "We" becomes "They". We, as distinct
from our representatives, is meaningless in this context. Besides,
states and localities throughout the nation have clearly ignored a
strict interpretation of the Second Amendment as an absolute, individual
right for decades.

Some states do, some states don't. DC was on one extreme. Vermont is on another.


The SCOTUS has been avoiding US vs Miller since 1939. Sooner
or later, they are going to be pushed into a corner on this. It will
then be put up or shut up time.

Don't count on that breaking your way. The Court had an unprecedented
opportunity to make a clear statement on this in the recent case and
they dodged the issue. Wonder why?



Because they weren't presented a case that forced them to.
.

Relevant Pages