Eminent Domain Stuff
New London Update (2/24/06)
Bad NLDC!
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Self Defense Bill
A bill has been introduced into the US House of Representatives entitled: Citizen's Self Defense Act of 2005 (H.R. 47 (ih)). Here are links to the html, the pdf versions and to the summary. The purpose of this Bill is to:
Instead, I would like to ask a question. It was suggested in the comments of this discussion board that this bill, as currently worded, would violate the 11th Amendment because of this section:
The Constitutionality of this Bill is, I think, a very important issue. The Bill essentially reaffirms the intent of the Second Amendment and so, if the Bill were found to be unconstitutional that decision would be used as fodder by the anti-2nd Amendment crowd. In all honesty, such a decision would likely not be relevant to the intent of the Bill (i.e., to ensure that all law-abiding citizens of the USA have the legal right to obtain and use a gun as a defensive tool) but rather would be aimed at a specific portion of the Bill. However, the PR of such a decision would be huge for the anti-2A side.
So, what do you think?
|
To protect the right to obtain firearms for security, and to use firearms in defense of self, family, or home, and to provide for the enforcement of such right.I obviously agree with the content of this Bill. However, the very existence of this piece of legislation provides yet another example of just how disturbingly distorted we have allowed our understanding of the 2nd Amendment to become. For those who don't recall the exact wording:
Amendment IIThere are lots of arguments from both sides on the meaning of this somewhat complicated sentence. I have shared my own opinion previously, so I won't go into a huge rant here.
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.
Instead, I would like to ask a question. It was suggested in the comments of this discussion board that this bill, as currently worded, would violate the 11th Amendment because of this section:
(c) Enforcement of Right.--Being less than a legal scholar, I don't know the underlying issues, but from my understanding of the 11th Amendment it would appear that a State cannot be sued by a nonresident. Is that true? Am I unable to name as a defendant a State of which I'm not a resident? What if I am on vacation and I am wrongly imprisoned by the State Police? In that case, am I restricted to only naming the State Police in a suit, or can I also directly sue the state that employs those police? And, if I am so restricted, would this Bill be in danger of being declared unconstitutional?
(1) In general.--A person whose right under subsection (a)
is violated in any manner may bring an action in any United
States district court against the United States, any State, or
any person for damages, injunctive relief, and such other
relief as the court deems appropriate.
The Constitutionality of this Bill is, I think, a very important issue. The Bill essentially reaffirms the intent of the Second Amendment and so, if the Bill were found to be unconstitutional that decision would be used as fodder by the anti-2nd Amendment crowd. In all honesty, such a decision would likely not be relevant to the intent of the Bill (i.e., to ensure that all law-abiding citizens of the USA have the legal right to obtain and use a gun as a defensive tool) but rather would be aimed at a specific portion of the Bill. However, the PR of such a decision would be huge for the anti-2A side.
So, what do you think?
|
