Jim said:
Jim Thompson wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 18:35:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
Jim Yanik wrote:
[snip]
Can you show me this "letter of the law"?
But that's a moot point anyway, because a state of war does
not excuse the administration from complying with the law.
Law does not override the Constitution;and it's within the
Executive's powers to act as Bush has done.
Show me where in the Constitution the Executive branch is exempt
from the fourth amendment.
[snip]
You are really getting tiresome. "W" ISN'T violating the 4th
Amendment. Please pay attention!
Not quite. George claims that he is not violating the 4th
amendment. Many others, including members of congress and the
courts (including the FISA court) disagree.
Everyone awaiting trial claims that "they didn't do it".
Protestations of the accused carry very little weight.
I guess that you also believe that the 2nd Amendment protects the
right of citizens(the People) to keep and bear ALL forms of arms?
(literal reading/interpretation)
That the 1934 NFA,and many other gun control laws are
unconstitutional,because they conflict with the 2nd Amendment?
The 2nd Amendment doesn't forbid states from restricting firearms from
their residents, so long as they apply the same restrictions to their
'militias' (police departments, sheriffs, etc.).
What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
It doesn't matter what limits a state places on it's employees.That would
be like a State limiting employees free speech or religion,and claiming
that they cound then limit the citizens rights to match.
The 2nd should be treated no differently than any other amendment.
All of the so-called "Bill of Rights" should be equally in force in all
states,seeing as they agreed to abide by the Constitution when they joined
the United States.The "incorporation" argument is not Constitutional
itself.
BTW,after the infamous N.Hollywood Bank Robbery,many police departments
obtained surplus full-auto M-16s to issue to their officers.
The "same restrictions" were NOT applied.In fact,most states and the
Federal govt EXEMPT LEOs from gun laws like the 1934 NFA.
Most police SWAT teams use full-auto HK MP-5's.(machine guns)
The Constitution restricts the right to arm militias to the US
Congress.
WRONGO!! it's the "right of the PEOPLE",not of "the militia" or "of the
States".
The only way a local government can organize any kind of
armed law enforcement is by employing individuals who already have
that right.
Any laws which restrict firearm types from the general public which
are not typically used by their militias would probably not be found
unconstitutional.
Hmm;youused a double negative here,so I'm guessing you mean to say that
arms used by militias would not be prohibited from citizens,that such laws
would be unconstitutional?
No.Militias get full-auto M-16's,use anti-tank rockets,recoilless
rifles,all sorts of prohibited arms.
BTW,the 2nd uses the word "arms",which is not limited to firearms.
Other weaponry would also be protected,if the 2nd were obeyed as well as
the 1st or 4th Amendments.
Unfortunately, this position has only been
referenced indirectly by the Supreme Court, so we haven't seen a
comprehensive decision supporting this.
The USSC one said it was OK to own slaves,too.
Nope. The local cops have to have permits (even if they carry them
openly).
Wrong again;many jurisdictions REQUIRE off-duty police to carry a
gun,concealed,of course.You might be surprised at how many exemptions gov't
employees get from laws the rest of use have to follow.
Retired police have to get permits,if they are offered in their state,which
is not always the case.
The states can impose any regulations they want, so long as
they don't arm their militias by selectively restricting all but the
members from their rights.
They have been held as unconstitutional by the courts in many cases.
The conditions under which such sweeps are allowed are highly
restricted.
DUI roadblocks,no. DRUG roadblocks were ruled to be unconstitutional.
DUI roadblocks were ruled to be OK.
