It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by lazy1981
Originally posted by Realtruth
[
It's all about how you handle the situation and then keep your mouth shut. You have no obligation to say anything until...............well actually you don't have to say anything even in front of a judge.
[edit on 21-11-2007 by Realtruth]
I'm sorry to say that the prevailing law here is , "Egual Force" if they have a knife and you use a gun you go to jail because you did not use egual force.
Even so, lets say for example that you get into an arguement with an individual and they take a swing at you and hit you, if you hit them back it's not self defence. You both get charged with assault, even if every witness says that you were defending yourself. Law enforcement says that you have to litteraly run away and that is what they consider "self defence."
I know it seems outlandish but I'm sorry to say that's the way it is in Chicago.
Originally posted by lazy1981
It all happens a little bit at a time.
The term "male" in this context can easily be neutered; therefore this is actually great for one to hang their hat on. Good find.
Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
...
#3 - this one will be a b***h in a way. since it singularly uses males. It specifically excludes old people and women.
Originally posted by CoffinFeeder
One of the big deciding factors in this will be to determine what a militia is and more importantly, is not.
www.cs.cmu.edu...
(b) The Fourth Amendment phrase "the people" seems to be a term of art used in select parts of the Constitution and contrasts with the words "person" and "accused" used in Articles of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments regulating criminal procedures. This suggests that "the people" refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
...
The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and
established by "the People of the United States." The Second
Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and
powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U. S.
Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the
right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art.
I, section 2, cl. I ("The House of Representatives shall be
composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the
several States"). While this textual exegesis is
by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by
the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and
to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national
community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection
with this country to be considered part of that community.
Originally posted by NellahB
Text Red Why would our government want us unarmed? Why has this issue even been taken to the Supreme Court? If DC wants to ban handguns, that's their choice. I'm keeping mine!
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the ‘supreme Law of the Land.’ In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as ‘the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,’ declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60, that ‘It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.
Originally posted by Togetic
reply to post by Roper
reply to post by lazy1981
The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution, espeically with respect to the rights enumerated therein.
The case in question is Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 18 (1958), stating, quote:
Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the ‘supreme Law of the Land.’ In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as ‘the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,’ declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60, that ‘It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’ This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system.
[edit on 11/26/2007 by Togetic]