« Home robbery is not a safe occupation in Nevada | Main | What? »
Lawmakers looking to expand gun owners travel rights
Story here. I'd suggest a major improvement would be to modify the present protection for interstate travel (provided the firearm may be possessed in the state where you begin and in the state where your trip ends) to convert it into something other than an affirmative defense.
An affirmative defense is something that amounts to: even tho the defendant broke the law, he still should be acquitted because (to choose some examples) the statute of limitations has run, or he was insane, or his violation was legally justified.
Court have construed the protection for interstate travelers to be such a defense, thereby rejecting lawsuits for false imprisonment. Antigun governments and agencies can arrest despite the protection, and essentially say, "tell it to the judge." So the gun owner might win acquittal in the end, but in the meantime he's been jailed until he bonds out (not easy to do far away from home), loses thousands in legal fees, and so on.
3 Comments | Leave a comment
If only judges, lawyers and public officials could understand simple English. The RIGHT to Keep and BEAR Arms Shall NOT be INFRINGED. I'm guessing that a WHOLE lot of malice is being practiced throughout the various US governments, state, local and federal.
And if only public officials (ALL of em) would on occasion actually be IMPEACHED or charged under 18 US Code 242. Why is that so hard??
I forgot to mention: IF the lawmakers give us the "right" it is NOT a right but a privilege. Privileges can be given and taken at the whim of the government. Rights come ONLY from God and cannot be taken away or given up. No person and no government has authority greater than God.
So whatever they do they cannot give us "rights".
If only the supreme court hadn't been so wrong in Barron v Baltimore and if only most people could actually understand what full faith and credit SHALL BE GIVEN - meaning the state has NO choice and must give credit to the public acts, records, and judicial decisions of every other state. So if my state gives me the authority to carry a weapon in my car no other state can counter that because it is a public act of one state. If my state gives me a concealed carry license then every other state is constitutionally bound to accept that public record on its face value. The clause giving Congress authority to pass GENERAL laws can never be held to mean to negate the "shall be given" since no interpretation is proper that causes one clause to negate the inclusion of any other clause.
But the Barron made it moot by claiming wrongly that the Bill of Rights did not bind the states.