On Tue, Aug 14, 2001 at 10:28:31AM -0400, Russ Herrold wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Paul M Foster wrote:
<snip>
> It
> > must never have occurred to them that the "inalienable" rights granted
> > by the federal Constitution would be trampled by the states.
>
> Isn't 'inalienable' present only in the Declaration of Independence,
> and not the Constitution? Oh -- there is the recent 'little
> laboratories of Democracy' in the States analysis; but this is a
> recent justifying invention of the federal Judiciary.
"Inalienable", though probably not used specifically in the
Constitution, would have been the word and concept used by the framers,
had they conceived of the need for it in the Constitution.
<snip>
> The city of Cincinnati has received an education as to its
> limitation of Concealed Carry recently with this text; the Texas
> (5th federal apellate circuit) case opinion passing on a state court
> opinion challenging Lautenberg in like fashion is expected
> imminently.
>
Do you really think the city learned anything from this? Liberals never
seem to get the point. Their answer is always more laws which they then
don't enforce, in order to enact outright bans later.
Don't know about the Lautenberg case, though I've heard the name.
I heard a blurb on the radio today that the Dems are backpedaling on the
gun control issue. The NRA likes to say that they/we are the ones who
decided the vote in favor of Bush, which may be true. Gore's gun control
stance was clear before the election, and then he chose to lie about it
during the debates. Funny, though, that the Dems would back off on this
issue. Just a sham really. They'll talk nice, but if elected, will do
all they can in the direction of banning guns.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:30:26 EDT