Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
Posted: 7/6/2001 3:01:21 AM EDT
[center]
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)
View Quote
[/center]
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 3:40:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/6/2001 3:37:19 AM EDT by Halfcocked]
I believe it was ZEN that said it this way... I don't need no stinking tin god's permission to carry a concealed weapon. What part of ...and bare arms shall not be infringed, don't they understand.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 3:47:49 AM EDT
Could someone please provide a link to the full ruling? If this is from the Supreme Court, we've got a bombshell on our hands. The question is, when to throw it at the antis? Kharn
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 4:53:53 AM EDT
Sorry boys... its just a lowly Court of Appeals case from Kentucky...not even the highest court of that state and not persuasive to the supreme Court of the US in the least...
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 4:58:05 AM EDT
Yes I noticed that, from the year 1822 no less. But still no less true.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 5:04:56 AM EDT
It does show that there is some form of higher intelligence in Kentucky! hehe just kidding...
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 5:10:00 AM EDT
However, that case has been cited by cases decided in the following courts: Kentucky Supreme Ct. 5th Circuit US Bankruptcy Ct. Alabama Supreme Ct. Arkansas Supreme Ct. Colorado Supreme Ct. Georgia Supreme Ct. Kansas Supreme Ct. Massachusetts Supreme Ct. Missouri Supreme Ct. Ohio Supreme Ct. The most recent case citing this case occurred in 1995.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 5:11:14 AM EDT
Some folks have kicked around ideas as to what would happen if the SCOTUS finally ruled the 2nd is an individual right. What sort of gun control laws would be cinstitutional and unconstitutional (of course we know all constitutional rights are subject to some regulation)? Most think the court (at least a conservative one) would adobt some sort of intermediate standard of review (instead of strict scrutiny). It is argued that background checks and registration probably wouldn't be unconstitutional, as ultimately such don't deny you arms, but outright bans would be. Who knows...
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 5:28:51 AM EDT
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 5:38:08 AM EDT
Freedom defined is freedom denied, regulation of enumerated rights is not constitutional. Yelling 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre is a different story.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 7:33:05 AM EDT
It's been over a year - when is the 5th Circuit going to get off it's ass and render a decision on Emerson??? It should read almost EXACTLY like Judge Cummings'.
Link Posted: 7/6/2001 8:08:49 AM EDT
Most folks like the status quo. I don't think you'd see any real change regardless of a SCOTUS ruling.
Top Top