Bill of Rights — what \”Rights?\”
Dan Miller\’s Blog ^ | December 5, 2013 | Dan Miller
Posted on Thursday, December 05, 2013 2:14:19 PM by DanMiller
The Bill of Rights has been around for a long time. Some complain that it gets in the way of the Government, but that\’s its purpose.
With an ever expanding Federal Government, can the Bill of Rights still get in its way? Or is the Government more effective in getting in the way of the Bill of Rights?
POLICE ENTERING HOMES TO MAKE SURE GUNS ARE STORED SAFELY? IF THIS POLITICIAN HAS HIS WAY… (Gunny G: AND WHAT THE FOLKS OUT THERE THINK ‘BOUT THIS !!!!!)
POLICE ENTERING HOMES TO MAKE SURE GUNS ARE STORED SAFELY? IF THIS POLITICIAN HAS HIS WAY
.theblaze.com ^ | Nov. 11, 2013 | Fred Lucas
Posted on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 12:36:39 PM by moonshinner_09
A Massachusetts politician has put forth a proposal to allow local police to enter homes without a warrant in order to inspect whether gun owners are properly storing their firearms.The idea was floated by Swampsott Selectman Barry Greenfield, who expressed frustration about the Newtown school massacre in the neighboring state of Connecticut and in other cases where people have obtained their parents’ guns to carry out shootings.
“We need the ability to enforce the state law,” Greenfield said, according to the Swampscott Patch.
The town of Swampscott reportedly has about 600 gun owners. Under Massachusetts law, it is “unlawful to store or keep any firearm … in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.”
Greenfield said he spoke with Swampscott Police Chief Ron Madigan about inspecting homes for proper gun storage.
But Selectman Glenn Kessler said there are questions about the constitutionality of the proposal and wants input from law enforcement, legal counsel and town residents. There will likely be a meeting to solicit town input, the Patch reported.
Washington state considered a similar law earlier this year, according to Boston Herald columnist Michael Graham.
“Then some lawyer heard a rumor about some ‘Second Amendment thingy’ and it went away,” Graham wrote.
“This isn’t a Second Amendment issue. It’s a Fourth Amendment one — unreasonable search and seizure,” Graham continued. “If Swampscott residents who don’t own guns sit back and allow this to happen, they’ll be playing their role in the famous parable of Martin Niemoller: “First they came for the gun owners, but I didn’t own a gun …”
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com …
AC Daily Updates on August 7, 2013 in 4th Amendment, Big Brother, Issues 0
Reason ^ | July 31, 2013 | J.D. Tuccille
Posted on Monday, August 05, 2013 9:15:09 AM by bamahead
The Fourth Amendment protects us from random invasions of our homes by police, right? We know we’re secure in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects” unless the cops demonstrate probable cause to a judge and get a warrant. Except… Except when they don’t. The fact of the matter is that police have a lot of leeway to bust your door down and take a look around if they fear that waiting for a warrant could lead to loss of evidence or danger to people.
Or lead to something, anyway. That end run around the Fourth Amendment is called “exigent circumstances,” and nobody really seems to be sure where it starts and stops. Except for the police. They know it when they see it.
By Alan Keyes
Impeachment must be the centerpiece of the 2014 elections – and candidates for both houses must sign a pledge to impeach!Boehner must be dumped as Speaker and replaced with the next president of the United States, whoever that may be, chosen by the House – the ‘people’s chamber’!Could 2014 be a returning point for America’s self-government?
Caught on the reef… “The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:…But, what do we do when government sees the people as the potential enemy. Governments are no more than people aligned by ideology. They see enemies behind every action, every protest, and every statement in controversy to the government’s actions. These are individual’s actions, but they’re still violations of a common trust developed and espoused in the Constitution of the United States of America and its Bill of Rights.”
Caught on the reef
Canada Free Press ^ | June 11, 2013 | Sarge
Posted on Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:37:53 AM by EXCH54FE
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Obama White House spying on half of America… “Shortly after the Constitutional Convention completed its work in Philadelphia in 1787, legend has it that a vagrant approached Benjamin Franklin and asked him what the Convention produced. He reportedly answered “A republic, Sir, if you can keep it.” Thursday morning we learned that the Republic has been lost. It is now a dictatorship.”… Judge Napolitano…
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or Affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, quoted in full above, was written to guarantee what the Framers called “the right to be let alone,” and what we have come to call “the right to privacy.”
The Supreme Court has ruled consistently and repeatedly that its contemporary purposes are to prevent dragnets and fishing expeditions, lest the rights of the innocent be assaulted along with those of the guilty.
Rand Paul to Introduce Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013
Reason ^ | Jun. 6, 2013 | Mike Riggs
Posted on Friday, June 07, 2013 9:57:21 AM by Qbert
In the wake of reports that the NSA has collected millions of phone records from Verizon customers, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) announced today that he will introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013 tomorrow, Friday, June 7. Here’s the release from Paul’s office:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today announced he will introduce the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act of 2013, which ensures the Constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment are not violated by any government entity.
Hundreds of Gunowners Show up in Temple, TX with Loaded Guns At the “Come and Take it” March | Alternative… ““While out hiking with my son through backcountry roads to help him earn his Eagle Scout rank, I was illegally arrested and disarmed without cause. I was thrown in jail and my lawfully owned weapons were confiscated without receipt or notice,” -Grisham”
(Before It’s News)
This past weekend Hundreds of Gunowners staged a successful armed march in Temple, TX with Loaded Weapons At the “Come and Take it March”.
Photo: Temple Daily Telegram
Photo: Temple Daily Telegram
June 4, 2013
A week ago this notice was posted by concerned gun owners in the state of Texas:
We will be gathering for a legal armed open carry march to raise public awareness of gun laws in Texas.
It is partially in response to the Temple Police Department violating the Second and Fourth Amendment rights of Active Duty MSGT Christopher J. Grisham HERE. Please join us all. We will be exercising our rights as free men and women. Be part of the solution. All permits and armed march route has been approved and coordinated with the city and local authorities. Come out for music, great speakers, food and a march around the police station and town square.
When: June 1st
Judge Napolitano on Obama’s War Against the Fourth Amendment
May. 2, 2013 7:00 amTalk Radio News ServiceTalk Radio News Service
The FBI has revealed that its agents often “lack the time” to obtain search warrants, writes Judge Andrew Napolitano, and so they have gotten into the bad habit of asking Internet service providers to let them in without warrants.View this article.
And on top of that, the bill furnishes these private companies with immunity from lawsuits. CISPA typifies a disturbing form of corporatism, where companies surrender all obligations to protect your privacy in exchange for litigation protection.
Companies can now be held harmless, irrespective of the hurt caused by divulging information to the government.
Youtube ^ | 4/15/2013 | Youtube
Posted on Tuesday, April 16, 2013 7:26:24 AM by chemicalman
DHS dry run?
Judge Napolitano And Shep Smith Take On IRS E-Mail Snooping Without Warrants: ‘Stay Out Of Our Stuff!’ | Mediaite
With Tax Day less than a week away, Fox News reported this afternoon on the American Civil Liberties Union obtaining IRS documents via the Freedom of Information Act that show the federal tax collection agency routinely searches Americans’ emails, possibly in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable search and seizures.
Reporter Jonathan Hunt noted to host Shepard Smith that the controversy over the Internal Revenue Service’s practices largely stems from the fact that the agency uses an “administrative summons” to decide to search an email without a search warrant or any form of court order.
IRS: We can read emails without warrant (Where’s the American Outrage?)
The Hill ^ | 04/11/2013 | Brendan Sasso
Posted on Thursday, April 11, 2013 12:24:02 PM by SeekAndFind
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has claimed that agents do not need warrants to read people’s emails, text messages and other private electronic communications, according to internal agency documents.
(Gunny G: Please, Read Reader Responses, Folks!) ~ IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant [Obama Treats 4th Amendment Like Toilet Paper]
IRS claims it can read your e-mail without a warrant [Obama Treats 4th Amendment Like Toilet Paper]
CNET ^ | 4/10/13
Posted on Thursday, April 11, 2013 9:47:49 AM by SoFloFreeper
The Internal Revenue Service doesn’t believe it needs a search warrant to read your e-mail.
Newly disclosed documents prepared by IRS lawyers say that Americans enjoy “generally no privacy” in their e-mail, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and similar online communications — meaning that they can be perused without obtaining a search warrant signed by a judge.
(The GubMint Does Not Give Us Free Speech!) ~No More Asking for Permission To Speak… by Andrew P. Napolitano
In 1798, when John Adams was president of the United States, the feds enacted four pieces of legislation called the Alien and Sedition Acts. One of these laws made it a federal crime to publish any false, scandalous or malicious writing – even if true – about the president or the federal government, notwithstanding the guarantee of free speech in the First Amendment.
The feds used these laws to torment their adversaries in the press and even successfully prosecuted a congressman who heavily criticized the president. Then-Vice President Thomas Jefferson vowed that if he became president, these abominable laws would expire. He did, and they did, but this became a lesson for future generations: The guarantees of personal freedom in the Constitution are only as valuable and reliable as is the fidelity to the Constitution of those to whom we have entrusted it for safekeeping.
The Constitution Repealed in Ten Stateshttp://www.christianpost.com/ ^ | February 11, 2013 | Judson PhillipsPosted on Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:23:25 PM by B4RanchYour constitutional rights have been repealed in ten states. No, this isn’t a joke. It is not exaggeration or hyperbole. If you are in ten states in the United States, your some of your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights have been made null and void.
And it is not just those ten states. Those are just the states where everyone who lives in those states has lost some of their constitutional rights. The sad truth is that there are only fourteen states where this stripping of the rights of American citizens has not happened.What is going on?The government has declared a one hundred mile zone around the United States borders to be a part of the border zone exception from the Fourth Amendment’s freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.The Fourth Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.Historically there has always been an exemption from the Fourth Amendment requirement at the nation’s borders.
This Is How We Resist *Video*
SHTF Plan ^ | Mac Slavo
Posted on Thursday, February 28, 2013 2:16:31 PM by blam
This Is How We Resist *Video*
February 28th, 2013
It should be clear by now that the Federal government, through various agencies like the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, is rapidly moving towards a legal model that aims to strip fundamental rights traditionally protected by the Constitution of the United States.
The Second Amendment is and has been under fire for quite some time, but what many Americans fail to realize is that the attack on our right to bear arms is only part of a much broader plan, one that aims to quietly kill any semblance of liberty we have left.
The Fourth Amendment, which protects an individual’s right to be secure in their own person and home is as important as the right to speak freely and defend one’s self, yet it is being eroded without respite.
At some point in the last couple of decades there was a shift in how the justice system deals with average citizens. No longer is there a presumption of innocence on the part of police or prosecutors. In the eyes of the government, we’re all guilty of something, a position that has left countless Americans imprisoned or dead for no other reason than the arresting officer or government attorney wanting to stroke their ego or increase their conviction rate.
The Right to Be Left Alone
by Mark Skousen
“The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men—the right to be let alone.”
-JUSTICE LOUIS D. BRANDEIS
According to Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, one of the “repeated injuries and usurpations” committed against the American people by the King of England was the erecting of “a multitude of New Offices, and . . . swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
Today, following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, the American people face another troublesome threat—swarms of security agents harassing us at airports, borders, buildings, and highways. Like many of you who travel frequently, my wife, Jo Ann, and I have been subjected to these often overzealous security guards who ask inane questions; force us to remove our shoes, jackets, and belt buckles; and meticulously go through our carry-on bags. I’ve had my fingernail clippers confiscated twice. Jo Ann was frisked three times in one day. Others have fared far worse. My friend and IOL fellow columnist Walter Williams was almost arrested in Jacksonville, Florida, after he refused to be patted down. A congressman was required to disrobe. After these security encounters, I always feel my privacy, indeed my dignity, has been violated.
President George W. Bush has urged citizens to return to normal life, but business and domestic affairs are never the same when a war is on, and this war on terrorism is no exception.1 Bush’s proposed federal budget jumped 9 percent from last year, pushing the United States into a deficit again. Private enterprise has been forced to spend billions on security measures, a real burden on a recessionary economy. (Imagine, intelligent employees spending the rest of their lives trying to catch some nut out there, representing 1/1000 of 1 percent of travelers.) Airport security has now become federalized. And we have become, in the words of Sheldon Richman, “tethered citizens.”
In revolutionary times, colonists were so incensed by the invasions of privacy and other personal abuses by British officers that Congress’s first act was to pass a Bill of Rights, including Amendment III, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law,” and Amendment IV, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Considering the rise of the use of military drones in concert with law enforcement, the undeniable increase in domestic drone operations and pending explosive growth of drone use in the United States, I wouldn’t be in the least bit surprised to see drones being used in news gathering as well.
According to a recent article by TV News Check, drones could be used in the newsgathering process as early as 2015 thanks to the legislation accelerating the integration of drones into the U.S. national airspacepassed earlier this year.
The Schiebel Corporation has partnered with Brain Farm and Snaproll Media, both U.S. companies, in order to turn the Camcopter into a platform capable of capturing high-definition, broadcast-qualityfootage.
Some clearly see a bright future for the use of drones in various commercial applications and especially in the field of journalism.
Once a week I check with bated breath my conventional meter attached to the side of my house.
I want to make sure no smart meter had been installed in my absence and without my permission. I have written to my utility companythat I do not wish to have a smart meter installed, I mailed the letter return receipt requested to make sure that they cannot claim non-receipt.
When Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced his bill in June, he was responding to growing concerns over privacy by
American citizens. The purpose of his bill is elegantly simple: “To protect individual privacy against unwarranted governmental intrusion through the use of unmanned aerial vehicles commonly called drones.” Paul’s bill is very specific:
[A] person or entity acting under the authority [of], or funded in whole or in part by, the Government of the United States shall not use a drone to gather evidence or other information pertaining to criminal conduct or conduct in violation of a statute or regulation except to the extent authorized in a warrant that satisfies the requirements of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Paul explained that “Americans going about their everyday lives should not be treated like criminals or terrorists and have their rights infringed upon by military tactics.”
Score one for the Fourth Amendment
Paul Joseph Watson
Using the excuse of attempting to apprehend illegal immigrants, Border Patrol agents have set up a network of unconstitutional checkpoints inside the United States. In this video clip, informed citizen Steven Anderson provides a sterling example of how to stand up for your rights and prove that such checkpoints are unenforceable because they violate the 4th amendment.
Traveling through California, Anderson encountered numerous internal checkpoints. When Border Patrol agents attempted to detain him for questioning, Anderson refused, citing his right as an American citizen to “go free on my way.”
You Tube ^ | July 9, 2012 | sanderson1611
Posted on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 2:48:12 PM by Errant
Must See Video – Expect this to go viral!
On the Friday, July 6 edition of the Alex Jones Show, Alex covers the latest police state antics by the Transportation Security Administration, including testing drinks and an insane policy that will require travelers to “freeze” upon command, a control freak plan once again revealing that the nation’s airports have indeed become Gestapo zones where the Fourth Amendment is dead and mean-spirited sadists rule.
National Security: The junior senator from Kentucky seeks to protect the Fourth Amendment from the advance of technology and require that all forms of surveillance by law enforcement require a warrant from a judge.
Does the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures include aerial surveillance of your house and property? Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., thinks so.
Warrantless checkpoints in the city of Liberty, Kentucky that were used by authorities to interrogate drivers who refused to display a sticker in their vehicle have been ruled unconstitutional by the Kentucky Supreme Court.
April 2, 2012
In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that it is permissible for jailers to strip search people arrested and jailed on minor offenses, even if they have not violated the law.
Supreme Court Rules Strip Searches OK for Minor Offenses 57060066.Image21Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority when he said that when an arrested person is to be put into the general jail population, “courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.”
Justice Stephen Breyer dissented. He said strip searches improperly “subject those arrested for minor offenses to serious invasions of their personal privacy.”
If this question had been asked by a fictional character in a spy thriller, it might intrigue you, but you wouldn’t imagine that it could be true in reality. If the Constitution means what it says, you wouldn’t even consider the plausibility of an affirmative answer. After all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was written to prevent the government from violating on a whim or a hunch or a vendetta that uniquely American right: the right to be left alone.
Coming? The Warrantless ‘Security Check’ of Your Home
That’s not far-fetched or paranoid, says Eric Peters. Indeed, it’s already begun.
…It is a serious question, not (as I will be accused of purveying) exaggerated or paranoiac. After all, we are already told specifically that we have no legal expectation of privacy when we’re out in public and it’s been implicit for years now that we have very little left in the way of Fourth Amendment rights anywhere – even in our own homes. See, for example, the recent Indiana Supreme Court decision that a homeowner has no right to resist even an illegal, warrantless and probable cause-free entry by cops. A cop, possibly psychotic, without doubt armed and packing the state’s authority to administer lethal violence – can literally kick in your door, for absolutely no lawful reason whatsoever – and if the homeowner resists, it is the homeowner who is in violation of The Law. If, say, you are asleep in bed and are awakened suddenly by the sound of your door being kicked in and you – fearing for your life – grab the pistol you keep by your bed and shoot the unknown berserker, it’s you who will go to prison!
Massachusetts Case Will Set Precedent Regarding Videotaping Of Cops
06-30-2011 • http://www.pixiq.com
They charged Simon Glik with felony wiretapping, disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner – even though all he did was hold up a video camera – and the man they were arresting did not escape.
The charges were quickly dropped and Glik eventually filed a lawsuit for false arrest, claiming his First and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated.
A judge denied that motion and they appealed, which brought the issue back to court last week.
Now another judge will decide whether the cops will be granted qualified immunity, which would set a legal precedent that cops can basically make unlawful arrests of citizens who videotape them without fear of repercussions.
Read Full Story
Protecting Fourth Amendment Wireless Rights
Protecting Fourth Amendment Wireless Rights: “…Primarily, the GPS Act would require that government agencies demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant before being allowed access to an individual’s geolocation information. It also defines exceptions for requiring a warrant, including in national emergencies (mirroring existing wiretapping law), the monitoring of children by their parents, and emergency calling systems (e.g., 9-1-1).
The GPS Act is vitally important not only to protect 4th Amendment rights, but also to provide clear, consistent, and understandable standards for law enforcement and wireless carriers. Without it, the government will maintain its vague and near limitless authority over the wireless data of American citizens. It’s introduction follows a similar bill introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) that expands ECPA law to cover online cloud computing services, where personal data is stored on systems owned by third parties…
Pulling plug on privacy; How technology helped make the 4th Amendment obsolete:
“So why haven’t you heard about it?
Because you’re the murderer. We all are. Our weapon of choice? Most recently, the smartphone, which, with our collective blessing, allows law enforcement to monitor our real-time geographic location. Although a bill recently proposed by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would require police to obtain a warrant before turning our cellphones into tracking devices, such legislation may come too late to save the Fourth Amendment from this fatal blow.
It started with the supermarket loyalty programs
Debate Over: The United States has official entered the annuls of history as a Soviet-style police state/While You Were Sleeping, They Abolished the Fourth Amendment
While You Were Sleeping, They Abolished the Fourth Amendment
The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Infowars.com Twitter Alex Jones’ Facebook Infowars store
Debate Over: The United States has official entered the annuls of history as a Soviet-style police state
Paul Joseph Watson
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Two recent Supreme Court cases have served to virtually abolish the Fourth Amendment in the United States of America, with citizens no longer being “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
In a precedent described by dissenting justices as “breathtaking” and “unnecessarily broad,” the Indiana Supreme Court ruled last week in a 3-2 vote that doing anything to resist police busting down your door and conducting an illegal search is now a criminal act.
“[We] hold that the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry into a home is no longer recognized under Indiana law,” the court ruled in the case of Richard L. Barnes v. Indiana.
“In my view, the wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad,” Dickson wrote.
“In my view it is breathtaking that the majority deems it appropriate or even necessary to erode this constitutional protection based on a rationale addressing much different policy considerations,” added Rucker. “There is simply no reason to abrogate the common law right of a citizen to resist the unlawful police entry into his or her home.”
The ruling was made under the justification that resisting a police officer had the potential to escalate and cause violence against the officer, meaning that the God-like status bestowed upon police officers now trumps both the 220-year-old Fourth Amendment and the 796-year-old Magna Carta on which it is based.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Posted by Gunny G
COPS TO HIJACK CITIZENS’ CELL PHONE DATA
By NWV News writer Jim Kouri
Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
April 23, 2011
© 2011 NewsWithViews.com
Imagine driving in your automobile with your family on a bright, summer day and you hear a police cruiser‘s siren and the officer motions for you to pull over. The police officer walks up to your car and says hello using your full name without seeing your license.
Not only that, he requests your cellular phone, and within seconds knows your home address, workplace, work-related telephone numbers, pictures and personal Internet information. Welcome to the 21st Century.
If what’s happening in Michigan becomes the model for the rest of the country, Americans are in for a big surprise when they discover their secrets aren’t so secret anymore thanks to modern technology, say national security and civil rights professionals.
Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANSboblonsberry.com ^ | 01/30/11 | Bob LonsberryPosted on Monday, January 31, 2011 8:51:21 AM by shortstopI believe in the Second Amendment.I believe that when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” that it means exactly that.I believe it is an individual right – just like the rights listed through most of the Bill of Rights – and that it specifically means Americans have a constitutional right to own and carry guns.That’s what “keep and bear” means – own and carry.I believe it as absolute and important a right as the freedom of speech or religion or the press. It stands next to the right to a jury trial and the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It is as precious as our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and our Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination and uncompensated government taking of our property.The Constitution isn’t a buffet. Government can’t pick and choose which parts it wants to follow. It is, every bit of it, our founding and defining document, and governmental disregard for it is a fundamental act of tyranny.I believe the Second Amendment is a civil right and the effort to protect the right to keep and bear arms is a civil rights movement.But not everyone feels that way.Snide politicians and professors and pontificators claim that the Second Amendment is about the National Guard, that it is a right given to states, not individuals. They claim that somehow the Founding Fathers thought slipping a states rights issue into a listing of individual rights was a good idea. They claim that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant that states were authorized to have maintain armies.I think that’s a bunch of crap.I think it’s typically a purposeful distortion of the historic record and common sense in an effort to advance a political agenda. I think people put forward that twisted interpretation of the Second Amendment because they don’t agree with the Second Amendment. They think the people ought not to have guns.And they are free to think that.But they are not free to subvert or pervert the Constitution. Any federal official who does so is violating his oath of office.I believe that the best way to understand what the Second Amendment means today is to look at what it meant when it was written. To help do that, I would like to refer to a document produced in Poughkeepsie, New York, in July of 1788.
Free RepublicBrowse · Search Pings · Mail News/ActivismTopics · Post ArticleSkip to comments.WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANSboblonsberry.com ^ | 01/30/11 | Bob LonsberryPosted on Monday, January 31, 2011 8:51:21 AM by shortstopI believe in the Second Amendment.I believe that when it says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” that it means exactly that.I believe it is an individual right – just like the rights listed through most of the Bill of Rights – and that it specifically means Americans have a constitutional right to own and carry guns.That’s what “keep and bear” means – own and carry.I believe it as absolute and important a right as the freedom of speech or religion or the press. It stands next to the right to a jury trial and the protection against cruel and unusual punishment. It is as precious as our Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and our Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination and uncompensated government taking of our property.The Constitution isn’t a buffet. Government can’t pick and choose which parts it wants to follow. It is, every bit of it, our founding and defining document, and governmental disregard for it is a fundamental act of tyranny.I believe the Second Amendment is a civil right and the effort to protect the right to keep and bear arms is a civil rights movement.But not everyone feels that way…
Lone Star Watchdog
Jan 1, 2011
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”