At 1:46 PM -0600 3/30/04, Joseph E. Olson wrote:
> The court dealt with the right to keep and bear arms by reasoning that:
>
> While the right to possess arms is acknowledged within the Michigan
>Constitution, this right is subject to limitation. Jurisprudence in this
>state has consistently maintained the right to keep and bear arms is not
>absolute. This Court has determined that 'the constitutionally guaranteed
>right to bear arms is subject to a reasonable exercise of the police
>power.' The state has a legitimate interest in limiting access to weapons.
Indeed, it is obvious that through the use of the following chain of
declarations:
While the right [x] is acknowledged in the constitution, this right
is subject to limitation.
Jurisprudence has maintained that the right [x] is not absolute.
The right [x] is subject to a reasonable exercise of the police power.
The state has a legitimate interest in limiting the right [x].
...no right is safe.
Especially troubling is the final assertion. Of course the state has an
interest in limiting its citizen's rights, plus the power to unilaterally
legitimize whatever interest it may be. That's precisely why such rights
are spelled out in constitutions, and the state told to keep its hands off
them.
--
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
Democrats will only be happy when all "tax breaks" went to those who never paid any
taxes in the first place.
--VIN SUPRYNOWICZ
_______________________________________________
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
