|
|
|
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 |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
