What the Second Amendment really means
What the Second Amendment really means
The Constitution secures an individual's right to bear arms, Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Jon tester (D-Mont.) said Thursday at The Heritage Foundation. They urged the Supreme Court to keep this in mind as they consider an important Second Amendment case.
http://www.myheritagemedia.org/gallery3.asp?action=search&text=020708
The high court will hear arguments next month about whether the District of Columbia's effective ban on firearms violates the Constitution. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller , could result in the most important Second Amendment decision since 1939.
The issue at stake, tester said, is "about rights granted in the Constitution."
Hutchison echoed the sentiment and dismissed critics who argue that the right to bear arms is collective, not individual. "The simple fact that [the right to bear arms] is located in the Bill of Rights and not Section 8 of the Constitution shows the Framers' intent."
Both senators cited the growing threat to this fundamental right. tester, for example, said he was appalled by the New Orleans gun confiscations which followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Heritage has been an effective advocate for a common-sense understanding of the Second Amendment. When District of Columbia v. Heller came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Heritage legal scholars helped the winning side prepare its arguments.http://www.myheritage.org/Features/EmailArchive/2007/031307.asp
-Chris Albright
The Constitution secures an individual's right to bear arms, Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Jon tester (D-Mont.) said Thursday at The Heritage Foundation. They urged the Supreme Court to keep this in mind as they consider an important Second Amendment case.
http://www.myheritagemedia.org/gallery3.asp?action=search&text=020708
The high court will hear arguments next month about whether the District of Columbia's effective ban on firearms violates the Constitution. The case, District of Columbia v. Heller , could result in the most important Second Amendment decision since 1939.
The issue at stake, tester said, is "about rights granted in the Constitution."
Hutchison echoed the sentiment and dismissed critics who argue that the right to bear arms is collective, not individual. "The simple fact that [the right to bear arms] is located in the Bill of Rights and not Section 8 of the Constitution shows the Framers' intent."
Both senators cited the growing threat to this fundamental right. tester, for example, said he was appalled by the New Orleans gun confiscations which followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Heritage has been an effective advocate for a common-sense understanding of the Second Amendment. When District of Columbia v. Heller came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Heritage legal scholars helped the winning side prepare its arguments.http://www.myheritage.org/Features/EmailArchive/2007/031307.asp
-Chris Albright
0
-
Trust a Texan and a Montanan to get it right! 0 -
The right to bear arms is not actually "granted" in the Constitution. It actually says that right shall not be infringed. It assumes citizens HAVE that right, or it is a God-given right if you will, and says the government shall not interfere with that right. 0 -
I tell you guys the truth, if Kay Bailey ran for the Oval Office, I'd vote for her in minute. She's one of our Senators and she is OK on all counts when it comes to truly American values. I've lived here 10 years and have not disagreed with her one time that I know of on issues of meaning.
My point is, she's got a good head on her shoulders and will represent our issues well. I'll write her a good note from the GB gang and thank her for her strong stand.0 -
quote:Originally posted by rhythm_guy
The right to bear arms is not actually "granted" in the Constitution. It actually says that right shall not be infringed. It assumes citizens HAVE that right, or it is a God-given right if you will, and says the government shall not interfere with that right.
+1. I'm glad somebody pointed that out.0 -
"about rights granted in the Constitution"
Change "granted in" to "recognized by"0 -
Damn Straight +1 0 -
quote:Originally posted by MT357
Trust a Texan and a Montanan to get it right!
Oh really? Because George Bush's DOJ has filed a brief with the court against the suit. And remember, George Bush said that he wanted a renewal of the assault weapons ban, that if it reached his desk he'd sign it. A Texan gets it right? I sure as hell don't think so.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
7 comments