D.C.: 2nd Amendment Does Not Apply Here

Seth8530 · 01-08-08, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seth8530

So the DC district judges say that only the military where ment to have guns? Then with that logic the bill of rights only aplies to the Federal gov meaning that us civies have no bill or rights............

You get a cookie!

This is exactly the problem.

-S

Mhmmm Liberty cookie! It seems at the big hub gub is over what the right "to keep and bear arms" meant back in the day.

n Amyette v. State the Tennessee Supreme Court stated in 1840 that the term "bear arms" "has a military sense, and no other" and further stated "A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."[56]

I personaly think it means we should have the right to keep guns in our posession because the Bill of Rights applies to all citz of the US.

I note that that is about 60 years after the BoR