imported post
District of Columbia V Heller
No. 07-290 Argued March 18, 2008 - Decided June 26, 2008
Page 19.
Not being a lawyer I am not sure my interpretation would stand up
in a court of law, but it says to me that the Second Amendment to
our Constitution says we CAN legally carry a weapon. I would hasten
to add, "if we can legally obtain one". In other words, if you are
a convicted felon or have been judged "mentally challenged" (and
also includes those addicted to drugs, etc.) you do not share this
right.
AND (note the big AND) that it not be concealed,
without proper permit.
To me, that guarantees National OC to be legal. That means DC, NY,
Chicago, LA (Kalifornia), etc. - - - Anyone want to be the
test case?
District of Columbia V Heller
No. 07-290 Argued March 18, 2008 - Decided June 26, 2008
Page 19.
c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The
very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes
the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it
“shall not be infringed.”
Not being a lawyer I am not sure my interpretation would stand up
in a court of law, but it says to me that the Second Amendment to
our Constitution says we CAN legally carry a weapon. I would hasten
to add, "if we can legally obtain one". In other words, if you are
a convicted felon or have been judged "mentally challenged" (and
also includes those addicted to drugs, etc.) you do not share this
right.
AND (note the big AND) that it not be concealed,
without proper permit.
To me, that guarantees National OC to be legal. That means DC, NY,
Chicago, LA (Kalifornia), etc. - - - Anyone want to be the
test case?