This camera is recording everything around it.
They're always watching - and we're the ones who decided we could live with that. Instead, you make demands and complain when other editors don't acquiesce to those demands. To break this down a bit: Lester Menica, the Company's President stated that "since we cannot afford the huge legal fees required to defend this ridiculous claim, and since a successful defense would still put us out of business, we are left with no alternative other than closing the doors.
Couldn't you have even found something by the more mainstream Madison. The method to that goal was to forbid the feds from taking action to disarm militia members by making the right to "keep and bear" arms constitutionally protected.
The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless--by disarming them. I look forward to the day we can stop being concerned about the effects of the personal opinions of editors contributing to this problem.
On the other hand, the bullying of other editors here, and on their talk page, needs to stop. Presumably individuals if wealthy and eccentric enough could "keep" such weapons, but they could not "bear" them.
You may want to change the name of the McDonald v. Yet once established, manufacturer and dealer liability will have no practical limit, and neither will plaintiffs' attorneys.
As suggested by Anastrophe, I have pruned the Introduction down to only what was its first paragraph. First, as I have suggested elsewhere, prediction of Supreme Court decisions does little to validate particular theories, given the complexities involved.
One of the criminal counts charged that the mob intended to hinder the right of the two men to bear arms. Miller, meanwhile, had absconded pending appeal, and presented no argument to the Court. Why has that been edited out.
This is such an important fundamental point in the article that it merits attention in the intro. No power applicable to an object, or any necessary and proper power derived from it, shall be extended to other objects with which it may be aggregated or causally connected, except to separate the applicable objects from the others.
Instead, any criminal charges usually arise from activities associated with their political beliefs. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.
And as for editor conduct, could we solicit comments or mediation of some sort. And considering that the Federal Second Amendment gives zero protection of state based rights to bear arms. The article already mentions that the prohibition on Congress was originally supposed to be added to a part of the Constitution dealing with individual rights.
Then, say that historically there had been a debate about whether the amendment protected an individual or collective right. Jun 14, · The supremacy of our US Constitution is again being questioned by the laughable concept that if the second amendment protected an individuals right to bear arms, all state laws would have to be the same.
On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to consider Hedges v. Obama, a constitutional claim challenging a law that could enable theindefinite military detention of US citizens—within the US—without trial, charge, or evidence of crime.
The decision is remarkable, both for its implications for fundamental rights, and its reflection on judicial. The filmmaker was recorded by the government without his consent during the making of this video.** I re-visit the Washington State Department of Transportation: Good to Go!
Customer Service Center in Seattle, Washington in order file a public records request and film what I. Under this view, the Second Amendment grants an unconditional right to bear arms for Self-Defense and for rebellion against a tyrannical government—when a government turns oppressive, private citizens have a duty to "insurrect," or take up arms against it.
Oct 27, · The modification needed on the First Amendment is the elimination of special perfection for the press.
The media should be treated no differently or preferentially than any. First Amendment [Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition ()] (see explanation)Second Amendment [Right to Bear Arms ()] (see explanation)Third Amendment [Quartering of Troops ()] (see.Should the us government revisit the second amendment