2nd amendment (heller) not approved on federal land (site).
Submitted by Bob Smith 1234 on Tue, 08/18/2009 - 01:32
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/i...
"The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added."
Um... what? You mean you can suspend laws because it's a federal zone around the president? I thought the constitution ESPECIALLY applied to federal zones?
»
What lands thy cannot murder for "ownership"
they conviscate the land by "proxy" in this case.
Taxes and regulation, manipulated costs steal the rest.
Mexico is already under the UN/IMF/WTO/NWO strangle hold, and it's coming our way.
The NWO will not succeed. Their very methodology from medicine to the way food is produced will produce only their failure.
The clean up for the mess they've laid around the world is astronomical and historically ignorant.
Remember that vedio from England, explaining that private property includes the right of the "owner" to stop freedom of speech on "their" property. Likewise, Agenda 21 will claim "ownership" of 84% of USA, and all of it was taken thru criminal acts, and qualify for fraud, a non contract, an illegal transferance. So, this is really just war.
They will not hesitate to try to "herd" us more under the control of martial law and the constant harrasment from renta-badge security Obamabots.
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
And never forget, “Humans, despite our artistic pretensions, our sophistication and many accomplishments, owe the fact of our existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains.”
bump
bump
The liberal 9th circuit...
The liberal 9th circuit took the heller decision and applied it to the all the states in their jurisdiction. I don't remember the name of the decision but it had to do with gun shows at a county fairgrounds. I think somewhere in the vicinity of Oakland. They decided for the fairgrounds and allowed for them to ban the gun shows, but then, totally out of character for them, they went through this huge process to find a nexus to allow for the heller and the second amendment, through the equal protection of the 14th to apply to the states. They did it on the basis of the 2nd being such a fundamental right to preserving liberty and our republican form of government that it transcended states rights to restrict firearms. This was neither necessary nor characteristic of that particular body for the decision they rendered, yet they did. It was truly an amazing piece of legal scholarship that should be studied by all at the Daily Paul who may be concerned about 2nd amendment issues. Read all of the majority opinion in the matter. It is an amazing piece of jurisprudence, especially considering it came from the most overturned and liberal court in the U.S.