"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."
This is the least cited amendment. It is clear and concise. A situation in which one would use this as the basis of a legal suit is very unlikely to occur. In fact, the most recent case of which I am aware is from 1982.
A group of prison guards went on strike in New York. Some of these guards rented housing from the prison, in a building about a half mile from the prison. When the guards struck, the National Guard was activated by the Governor to take over for the guards. The quarters rented by the guards were used to house the soldiers. A pair of the prison guards sued the Governor and several other officials on the basis that the 3rd Amendment had been violated. In state court, the claim was summarily dismissed. After appeal, the ruling was upheld. The guards did not own the apartments. The guards were not required to use the apartments.
With the number of available facilities throughout the United States and the military's ability to quickly erect "tent cities" just about anywhere, the need to utilize civilian homes for service member housing is slim to none.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Second Amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Many a debate has been had over this one. Does it pertain to a state militia (now the National Guard) or an individual citizen's right to own and carry firearms? If we were to ask many of our founding fathers, the answer would surely be . . . "Yes."
State militias were necessary for states to protect the borders. Today we have the National Guard which serves that function. In some states, there are still laws on the books requiring "men of age" (varies by state) to own a rifle. I don't personally know anyone who objects to this interpretation of the wording of this amendment.
The right for an individual citizen to own and carry a firearm is the heated part of the discussion. The founding fathers had been ordinary citizens who felt the need to rebel with the goal of creating a better system for their desires and needs. The representative republic (yes, not a democracy) which they had outlined seemed like a great idea. They also knew that the time may come again when the citizens of this new nation would have to rise against another tyrannical and oppressive government.
Most individual state constitutions address the issue directly. For example, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." (Article 1, Section 21) Pretty clear. Yet, somehow, there are plenty of situations where my right is questioned. My place of employment does not permit me to carry my pistol, not even in my car into the parking lot. Depressing.
Many argue that gun control laws protect people. Do criminals follow the law? No. Otherwise, they would not be criminals. (Sure, none of us are PERFECT law-abiding citizens.) Those of us who are upstanding members of society are limited by these laws -- not the criminals. Yes, we with good morals, who would protect you from these criminals, are limited in our ability to do so by these ridiculous regulations. Think about it.
If a criminal wants a firearm will he acquire it legally, carry it legally, and use it legally? Or will the weapon more likely be obtained illegally, carried illegally, and used illegally?
Perhaps, one day, enough people will realize the importance of owning and carrying weapons to protect ourselves, our families, and even those we do not know to return to common sense on this issue. I fear that someday we may all be forced to use those plastic safety scissors (instead of metal bladed ones) to protect everyone from cuts.
I carry with pride. I hope to never have to use it. But don't think I won't if the situation warrants the use of deadly force.
Many a debate has been had over this one. Does it pertain to a state militia (now the National Guard) or an individual citizen's right to own and carry firearms? If we were to ask many of our founding fathers, the answer would surely be . . . "Yes."
State militias were necessary for states to protect the borders. Today we have the National Guard which serves that function. In some states, there are still laws on the books requiring "men of age" (varies by state) to own a rifle. I don't personally know anyone who objects to this interpretation of the wording of this amendment.
The right for an individual citizen to own and carry a firearm is the heated part of the discussion. The founding fathers had been ordinary citizens who felt the need to rebel with the goal of creating a better system for their desires and needs. The representative republic (yes, not a democracy) which they had outlined seemed like a great idea. They also knew that the time may come again when the citizens of this new nation would have to rise against another tyrannical and oppressive government.
Most individual state constitutions address the issue directly. For example, the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." (Article 1, Section 21) Pretty clear. Yet, somehow, there are plenty of situations where my right is questioned. My place of employment does not permit me to carry my pistol, not even in my car into the parking lot. Depressing.
Many argue that gun control laws protect people. Do criminals follow the law? No. Otherwise, they would not be criminals. (Sure, none of us are PERFECT law-abiding citizens.) Those of us who are upstanding members of society are limited by these laws -- not the criminals. Yes, we with good morals, who would protect you from these criminals, are limited in our ability to do so by these ridiculous regulations. Think about it.
If a criminal wants a firearm will he acquire it legally, carry it legally, and use it legally? Or will the weapon more likely be obtained illegally, carried illegally, and used illegally?
Perhaps, one day, enough people will realize the importance of owning and carrying weapons to protect ourselves, our families, and even those we do not know to return to common sense on this issue. I fear that someday we may all be forced to use those plastic safety scissors (instead of metal bladed ones) to protect everyone from cuts.
I carry with pride. I hope to never have to use it. But don't think I won't if the situation warrants the use of deadly force.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
