DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER www.law.cornell.edu Weapons for war are what were intended by the Second Amendment. It was for assault weapons; not hunting rifles. You cannot regulate a right without losing it. It should be common knowledge the Supreme Court is on our side in this.
"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." District of Columbia v. Heller | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law www.oyez.org For the first time in seventy years, the Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws,,, The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
SUMMARY OF THE RECENT MCDONALD V. CHICAGO GUN CASE
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
After Heller, the federal government cannot prohibit the possession of handguns in the home. This case raises the question of whether the same restriction applies to state governments. McDonald argues that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right that states should not be able to infringe. Chicago argues that states should be able to tailor firearm regulation to local conditions. The outcome of this case will affect the ability of states to regulate the possession of handguns in their jurisdictions and could have far-reaching effects on long-held conceptions of federalism. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/08-1521
Any civil or military agent of the Obama Administration who follows an illegal order will be subject to criminal penalties and civil law. Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court found that the President of the United States does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" which allow him to ignore a law passed by the United States Congress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_v._Barreme
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's interim provision commanding the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional.
Printz v. United States - 521 U.S. 898 (1996) Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act provisions require the Attorney General to establish a national system for instantly checking prospective handgun purchasers' backgrounds, note following 18 U. S. C. § 922, and command the "chief law enforcement officer" (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct such checks and perform related tasks on an interim basis until the national system becomes operative, § 922(s). Petitioners, the CLEOs for counties in Montana and Arizona, filed separate actions challenging the interim provisions' constitutionality. In each case, the District Court held that the background-check provision was unconstitutional, but concluded that it was severable from the remainder of the Act, effectively leaving a voluntary background-check system in place. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding none of the interim provisions unconstitutional. (e) Contrary to the contention of JUSTICE STEVENS' dissent, the Brady Act's direction of the actions of state executive officials is not constitutionally valid under Art. I, § 8, as a law "necessary and proper" to the execution of Congress's Commerce Clause power to regulate handgun sales. Where, as here, a law violates the state sovereignty principle, it is not a law "proper for carrying into Execution" delegated.
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939) , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
PARKER V. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA [prior to DC vs Heller] http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E23F1D1340E39A99852574400045380B/$file/04-7041a.pdf http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0557.htm
On June 27, 2005, the Supreme Court dismissed Castle Rock v. Gonzales on the grounds that there was no constitutional right to police protection.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found that Jessica Lenahan could sue the Castle Rock, Colorado, police department for its refusal in 1999 to enforce a restraining order against her estranged husband. The American courts had dismissed her case.
The town of Castle Rock, Colorado and its police department could not be sued under 42 USC §1983 for failure to enforce a restraining order against respondent's husband, as enforcement of the restraining order does not constitute a property right for 14th Amendment purposes.
Respondent filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children.... ... (a) The Due Process Clause’s procedural component does not protect everything that might be described as a government “benefit”: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person … must … have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”
JULY 15, 1991: Clarence Thomas, judging from his speeches and scholarly writings, seems instead to believe judges should enforce the Founders' natural law philosophy -- the inalienable rights "given man by his Creator" -- which he maintains is revealed most completely in the Declaration of Independence. He is the first Supreme Court nominee in 50 years to maintain that natural law should be readily consulted in constitutional interpretation.
Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman said the suspect, Paul Ali Slater, is now “walking and talking” after recovering for more than a month at Gwinnett Medical Center. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports (http://bit.ly/WfI2HC) that bullets punctured his lungs, liver and stomach. He faces aggravated assault and burglary charges. http://valdostadailytimes.com/todays-top-stories/x2056613562/Man-shot-by-Ga-mom-in-home-invasion-recovering-from-wounds
WHY DO WE NEED FULLY ARMED CITIZENS? EXAMPLE:
Battle of Athens (1946) The Battle of Athens (sometimes called the McMinn County War) was a rebellion led by citizens in Athens and Etowah, Tennessee, United States, against the local government in August 1946. The citizens, including some World War II veterans, accused the local officials of political corruption and voter intimidation. The event is sometimes cited by firearms ownership advocates as an example of the value of the Second Amendment in combating tyranny. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htmhttp://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw
GUN CONFISCATION IS NOT JUST A FEAR; IT IS A STATED GOAL
Dianne Feinstein Gun ban in 1995 - She wanted to Ban all guns,