You never had to worry about them running around because they were hung.
Hung? I believe you instead meant, hanged.
One running about as such, would be a rather pornographic endeavor.
You never had to worry about them running around because they were hung.
Not really, because some people will be denied permits. In 1787 when the U.S. Constitution was written, it would have been unheard of--and scorned--to suggest that felons, the mentally ill, etc., should be denied the use of arms.
Under the original meaning of these constitutional guarantees, the license would likely be completely unconstitutional unless it was freely given to anyone who asked for one. A modest fee probably wouldn't present a constitutional problem, either.
because in 1787 Felons were hanged and the mentally ill locked up and left for dead, think before you post.
because in 1787 Felons were hanged and the mentally ill locked up and left for dead, think before you post.
Trolls are incapable of such. Tis' the reason why I have blocked this particular "individual" from my view.
Have you studied legal history?
Do you really think we had institutions to lock up every mentally ill person in 1787?
Awesomeness. Thanks dude.
Josh
Here let me help you with that...
What does legal history have to do with this fact?! It would actually fall more under social studies than any other area I believe.
You are right on your second point, kinda maybe... We did have very few mental Institutions in the late 16th Century. Most people with problems were left to their own devises, at least until someone came along and gave them the cure for Stupid anyway.
Well Bill B since you asked and you aren't you not in a case yourself right now I say we all vote for you!
The key is to change the standard of review for right to arms cases from reasonable to strict scrutiny.
Matthews v. State, 148 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. 1958) (Indiana Supreme Court holds that license provision is reasonable regulation of right to arms)
Dozier v. State, 709 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (latest court of appeals case to reaffirm Matthews)
Exactly, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms should be considered a "fundamental right"[STRIKE], like many of the other enumerated rights[/STRIKE]. The standard of review would then be "strict scrutiny" making it tougher for the state to justify regulations and restrictions of the right.
Hung? I believe you instead meant, hanged.
One running about as such, would be a rather pornographic endeavor.
FIFY. All rights are fundamental.
Have you studied legal history?
Do you really think we had institutions to lock up every mentally ill person in 1787?