At 10:31 AM -0800 3/15/04, Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> "Here the issue is not really the Second Amendment, since English
>and American law have long recognized that every individual has the right
>to protect himself or herself against bodily harm or theft of property. If
>one uses a gun to shoot an attacker, the killing will be excused not as a
>constitutional right, but as a matter of criminal law. The Second
>Amendment was never intended to augment or diminish this traditional
>right, and advocates of gun control have never argued that they want to
>deny individuals the ability to protect themselves against criminals."
>
> Well, first, if one uses a gun to shoot an attacker, and guns are
>banned, the killing might be excused -- but the person who is defending
>himself may still be prosecuted for the illegal gun ownership (which has
>indeed happened). Saying that "the killing will be excused . . . as a
>matter of criminal law" might be technically accurate, but strikes me as
>quite misleading.
Obvious, trivial counterexamples to the State Department's claim include
Bernie Goetz, Hale DeMar, and Ronald Dixon.
--
Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty
Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch
http://libertyhavenranch.com
Joe Harris, 48, who has several cattle ranches, leases a ranch east of Douglas [AZ]
having approximately 10 miles that abut Mexico... Once when Harris was repairing a
gaping hole in the international fence that lines his property, undercover men
appeared. They had badges, were dressed in black, and drove unmarked cars. They told
me, 'This is government property. You shouldn't be repairing this fence.'"
--MARTHE DARE, SIERRA TIMES
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
