Does DC know what "Does not deprive" means?
On page 21 of its request for cert from the Supreme Court, DC makes the following claim:
A law that bans handguns, but permits private ownership of rifles and shotguns does not deprive anyone of the right to keep and bear Arms, however that right is construed."
"Does not deprive" is a pretty strong term. But owning rifles and shotguns is not the same thing as being able to use them. The word "bear" must mean something. The implications for DC's gun locks can be seen in the paper found here. Some of the diagrams in the paper are particularly useful.
"Does not deprive" is a pretty strong term. But owning rifles and shotguns is not the same thing as being able to use them. The word "bear" must mean something. The implications for DC's gun locks can be seen in the paper found here. Some of the diagrams in the paper are particularly useful.
Labels: GunControl, SupremeCourt
posted by John Lott at 3:12 PM
1 Comments:
Markie Marxist sez: "Sending someone to prison for keeping and bearing arms does not deprive anyone of the right to keep and bear arms. At least that's what we want people to believe. It's convenient for us. Pure BS of course, but convenient. Our friends in the media certainly aren't going to question our reasoning."
Post a Comment
<< Home