|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
RI: A primer on the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Michael F. Kraemer is a retired Rhode Island attorney and a volunteer with the Rhode Island Coalition Against Gun Violence who has testified before the judiciary committees of the Rhode Island House and Senate.
The right to bear arms established under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is often misunderstood. Given the proposed firearms legislation pending in the General Assembly, it is important to understand what the law does and does not protect. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(3/4/2021)
|
| For a lawyer this author just does not have a clue. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(3/4/2021)
|
Well, he starts off with a blatant lie.
"The Court did not establish any other right regarding gun ownership, beyond 'the right ... to use arms in defense of hearth and home.'"
What an arrogant piece of nonsense!
Held:
1. 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. Pp. 2–53.
Let me repeat that: "...to use that arm FOR TRADITIONALLY LAWFUL PURPUSES, SUCH AS self-defense within the home." (emphasis mine)
The author's 'interpretation' doesn't merely distort the precedent, it unconscionably misrepresents it. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
