Re: 9th Amendment: a dead letter?

"Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:x-B6C7F7.21142501052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <481a69cb$0$30157$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> "GeekBoy" <geek@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:x-D9389F.19241701052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > In article <Ap-dnTAhj-cdzYfVnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> > "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> >> news:x-5F8C5E.18550401052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> > In article
>> >> >
<56634f83-2a6b-40a1-9169-b7462535f992@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>> >> > RichD <r_delaney2001@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> When was the last time the 9th was
>> >> >> cited in any court decision?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm thinking of the recent DofC v. Heller
>> >> >> case, not yet decided.  Both sides split
>> >> >> hairs over the meaning of 'well regulated
>> >> >> militia', for the 10000th time.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why not make an appeal to the Ninth,
>> >> >> arguing 'right to life' implies 'right to self
>> >> >> defense', inalienably?  Is this not bulletproof,
>> >> >> is anyone honestly going to argue the
>> >> >> contrary?  It's certainly more solid than
>> >> >> dickering over the 2nd Amenment.
>> >> >
>> >> > There is a right to self-defense.  However, self-defense only 
>> >> > applies
>> >> > to
>> >> > the use of force in a given situation; it doesn't apply to the
>> >> > possession of weapons.
>> >>
>> >> And how do you defend yourself without the appropriate tools ?
>> >
>> > I'm not giving you my opinion; I'm telling you what the law says.
>> >
>> > The Bernie Goetz case was the perfect example.  He was found not
guilty
>> > of shooting people because they jury believed he was acting in
>> > self-defense.  He was, however, convicted of illegally possessing a 
>> > gun,
>> > because self-defense wasn't applicable to that count.


Funny it worked for Dick Heller as well as for Jack Miller.


>>
>>
>> Not exactly since his attorney or him never brought up  right to bear 
>> arms
>> in this case as a defense.
>
> Because it was (and is) well-established law that that wouldn't succeed
> for him.
>
> I love how the armchair quarterbacks online seem to recognize the
> obvious, winning arguments as clear as day that the experienced, trained
> attorneys and parties to the case didn't see in all their hours and days
> and weeks working on the case.
>
>
>> > By your logic, anyone should be allowed to own anything that could
>> > possibly be used as a weapon.  Where can I get myself a couple of
hand
>> > grenades?
>>
>> Would be a bit difficult if, for example, General Praeteus decided to 
>> move
>> the next US election up a few months as himself being only candidate.
>
> You think he could make that decision, with any real effect?