Re: The Second Amendment revisited

Jim Babcock said:

The Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of states to ban hand guns.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8T1IL100&show_article=1

This will be a good one to follow as it is heard. I expect them to say that DC has the right to ban them. What do you think? What will be more interesting will be the final split and the wording from the court. Depending on the wording this could be a big deal or a dud.

I CAN ONLY HOPE that someone defending the constitution remembers and brings forth the, maybe 1960's, Supreme Court decision that one has to protect oneself, as the police are there to enforce the law when broken, BUT NOT DEFEND THE CITIZEN even when the citizen has proof of someones intent to do him harm.

It was a local dispute that the police were called into, and they were aware of threats made to one of the people. That party was told by the authorities to be prepared to protect himself if something happened. Well, it did happen and when the victim called for help, the police got there too late to prevent serious harm.

A bit of searching will find the ruling, and IIRC the wording literally tells the average citizen to be ready to protect oneself at least to the level of possible violence in his living area. When guns are used against the ordinary citizen, that citizen should be allowed to be able to respond in a like manner by this old ruling!

YMMV

John Holt said:

This was once explained to me, though in an abridged version. Additionally, to make sure the assailant is(was) within the living space.

John,

I am not sure, but I suspect you are referring to the case where the party that owned a remote property got tired of it being robbed, and proceded to set a trap for the next intruder. SADLY, the owner used a trip wire to set off a gun that critically wounded the "perp" better known as the scumbag that knowingly entered anothers property to rob the party of his rightful goods. THIS case went against the property owner BECAUSE no ones life is in danger if the home was unoccupied at the time of robbery. THEREFORE the innocent home owner became the bad boy for using excessive force to protect his property. The law reads in most states that one may use force equal to that used to inflict injury as a preventative measure: i.e.: one cannot use a shotgun to stop a kid pilfering a candy bar, but the shotgun would be appropriate within your house AFTER the slime ball takes a shot at you, BUT only if the slime ball is facing you. If the slime ball has turned to escape and his weapon is not aimed at YOU, you have NO REASON to return fire as the deadly threat is now absent as the bum runs for the door to escape your return fire. IF the intruder drops the weapon and takes a position of non-resistance, and you then injure the bum, YOU are the attacker, even in your own house!

Ever wonder why so many police shooting are challenged in the court system, and why most police keep the camera in their vehicle running for ANY incident that arises. Cameras in the front and rear of your own vehicle could save your butt if you are the victim of an auto accident that is obviously anothers fault, yet hang you if you goof and cause the accident.

YMMV