A jury of the 18th of October [2000], Texas, found that San Angelo's doctor Timothy Joe * Emerson has aggravated assault and endangered innocence of a child. In August 1998, his wife, who was embroiled in an affair with another man, applied for a divorce and applied for a temporary detention order to ban Dr. Emerson. At a hearing a few days later, Mrs. Emerson claimed that her husband had been threatened during Tele
It's tough. :
Assault weapons, brady building, collective rights view, gun restrictions, individual rights, nra, second revision, semi-automatic weapons, sniper rifle
Article body:
Gun regulation is not a constitution
Lee, Robert W. Becomes a Problem: Is Gun Ownership Right? Kelly-Doyle-Green Heaven Press 2005
point of view
A jury of the 18th of October [2000], Texas, found that San Angelo's doctor Timothy Joe * Emerson has aggravated assault and endangered innocence of a child. In August 1998, his wife, who was embroiled in an affair with another man, applied for a divorce and applied for a temporary detention order to ban Dr. Emerson. A few days later, at a hearing, Mrs. Emerson claimed that her husband was threatening during a phone conversation to kill her boyfriend. Primarily based on that claim, the county district court judge should not show or find that Dr. Emerson actually threatened his wife or four-year-old daughter.
Judges are also found on firearms because of the vague provisions of the 1994 Violent Crimes Control Act, which prohibits such injunctions from possessing guns.
After a confrontation between the controversial couple in his office on the 16th, 1998, Mrs. Emerson claims that Dr. Emerson was shook her handgun and threatened her and her daughter, he was also allegedly innocent By the way, it was charged with a state charged with a federal grand jury violating the 1994 Act.
Judge Sam R. Cummings of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas on the 30th of May [1999], it is the Constitutional Right of Dr. Emerson under the Second and Fifth Amendments. “The constitutional framework sees it as an individual's right, with the intention that the second amendment will maintain individual rights and possess weapons, or that the founders will apply only to collectives such as state soldiers. After all, the Bill of Rights protects the individual's right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.
From the government Why does the founding father add the collective right of the government holding the weapons to such a list?
Judge Cummings' ruling is particularly important because it is the first time a federal court has overturned the gun control law on the grounds of a second amendment. The prosecution promptly heard the oral argument in the appellate month to this decision to the United States The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal ,. Although the decision is expected by the end of the year, regardless of the outcome, United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson may eventually reach the Supreme Court. Rather, what began as a routine divorce dispute has shifted to what is likely to be the most important second revision case in our country's history. [In 2001, the Fifth Circuit Court reversed the opinion of the lower courts. In 2002, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear the case. ]
Heritage of Liberty in America
The historical record clearly supports Judge Cummings' analysis and opinion. The interpretation of the "group" of the second amendment, the invention of the twentieth century, disarms the American in general, thereby deciding to give the government agency a monopoly on firearms in the second amendment " The reference to "military soldiers" is not a reference to the National Guard that did not exist at that time, but to the people themselves. As explained by George * Mason, the author of the Bill of Rights in Virginia, the militia is "consisting of the whole people, except for some public officers."
David * E * Young, Editor of the Origin of the Second Amendment: The Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in the Commentary on Freedom, the Free Government and the Armed Forces 1787-1792 (1995), "[Jae '.. The term "collective rights" prevailing today among advocates of government gun regulations has never been used by anyone in the constitutional era. "The founding generation continued, Young "Rather than interpreting the second amendment of the right language and the predecessor bill as related to the power of the government's militia or the authority of the country, only the weapon"
The legacy of American freedom is largely based on the right of individual citizens to defend and arm their weapons. Because it helps to protect everything else (free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, etc.). ). As the United States Supreme Court Justice Joseph * Story described in his authoritative commentary on the Constitution (1833): "It carries a powerful moral check against the ruler's robbery and any power"
Maintaining weapons is a duty
The British triggered a revolutionary war itself when trying to seize private arms stored by American colonists at private homes in Concord Loading before April 18 and 1775, Lexington Green and its gatherings gathered before it A large number of colonists armed with heavy muskets. When the British arrived, the clerk commanded the Rebels "Your villain-take your arms down," but they refused. Officials then ordered the rebels besieged, and fires were fired in the ensuing turmoil. Three British soldiers were injured and eight militants were killed.
Following its initial skirmish, the British continued to march to Concord, but when they began to tear the plank of the bridge over the strategic river, American militia again, shots were fired by both sides And, British officers commanded a hideout among them, by the historian Donzella Crossboy at the quest of Hemisphere, "If it allowed the colony to be disarmed thus, American independence never succeeded. A long, bitter war for the war began.
Fortunately, the settlers refused to do so. In 1671, more than a century before Lexington and Concord, King Charles II, the same governor to colonize his royal governor to disarm the Americans, the evolution of the Constitution right (1984): "This As such, the arms control in the English experience not only conquers the poor and middle class and religious groups domestically but also governs, Scots, Ireland, "A four-sided lyric farmer stood at Concord Bridge in 1775" And "shot shot heard a round of the world," they did with unregistered
Forfeit the gun
Today's anti-gun hysteria contrasts with the attitude of the early American colonists on firearms. A 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Judicial Commission, for example, recalled: in 1623, unless they were well armed, Virginia, its settlers "; in 1631, it Engaging in target practice on Sunday, "needed the settlers to bring their peeces to the church." In 1658, it required every doorkeeper to have a working firearm in his home He is a moderate price, when the citizen who requested him in 1673 can do so in Massachusetts, in the first session of the parliament, not only the free people but also the pensionee's employees own firearms and 6 for unarmed citizens at 1644
0 comments:
Post a Comment