The vast majority of US states guarantee an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

39 states have constitutional provisions for the right to keep and bear
arms. In nearly every state, the self-defense basis of the right has
been held to exist in state case law. In a good number of them, there
is an *explicit* mention of the right to keep guns for self-defense.

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowrkba.html

For example:

Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the
defense of himself and the state.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense
of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of
himself and the state.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in
defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

[Siri Cruz]

In article <msd2k6$247$1...@dont-email.me>, Carol Kinsey Goman <c...@forbes.con>
wrote:

> 39 states have constitutional provisions for the right to keep and bear

States are generally allowed to recognise rights the federal government does
not. The question is what rights can Congress or federal courts force states to
recognise.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.'
When is a Kenyan not a Kenyan? When he's a Canadian.
That's People's Commissioner Siri Cruz now. Punch!

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

On 9/4/2015 9:46 PM, Siri Cruz wrote:
> In article <msd2k6$247$1...@dont-email.me>, Carol Kinsey Goman <c...@forbes.con>
> wrote:
>> 39 states have constitutional provisions for the right to keep and bear

> States are generally allowed to recognise rights the federal government does
> not.

The recognition that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual
right that includes the right to use arms in self defense is both wide
and deep. The left have always lied about this.

[betweentheeyes]

Siri Cruz <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:chine.bleu-E850F...@88-209-239-213.giganet.hu:

> The question is what rights can Congress or federal courts force
> states to recognise.
>

Point of argument

Congress and the courts do not 'allow' they ALWAYS STOP 'things' from
happening. Sometimes they stop 'good' things, sometimes they stop
'bad' things, all from one's perspective, but eventually ALL at the
point of a gun and subsequent incarceration.

Another way to look at it. If Congress or the Courts did NOTHING,
whatever it is, 'good' or 'bad', continues, nothing stops, everything
goes along just as it did, 'good' or 'bad'.

It is a nuisance, but an important one.

Dred v Scott
Mcdonald v City of Chicago
Roe v Wad
1986 Brady law
1939 FFA

Each of those framed someone as doing (or not doing) something
someone else thought was 'bad'

[︰ones]

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 14:33:37 -0700, in talk.politics.guns Carol Kinsey
Goman <c...@forbes.con> wrote:

>39 states have constitutional provisions for the right to keep and bear
>arms. In nearly every state, the self-defense basis of the right has
>been held to exist in state case law. In a good number of them, there
>is an *explicit* mention of the right to keep guns for self-defense.

But, they don't need to protect self defense explicitly; it's fine;
however its redundant and redundant. Besides, it's saying what has
already been established. It's also redundant.

Jones

PS: Jones wrote this.

[Carol Kinsey Goman]

But they *do*, in fact, state it explicitly. That has meaning. Among
other things, it helps to refute the claims of the gun-grabbers that the
right secured in the second amendment does not include a right to keep
and bear arms for self defense. It establishes that the right to keep
and bear arms was *always* seen, since colonial times, as being based in
part on a right to self defense.

[Lance]

In article <msd2k6$247$1...@dont-email.me>

Carol Kinsey Goman <c...@forbes.con> wrote:
>

> 39 states have constitutional provisions for the right to keep and bear
> arms. In nearly every state, the self-defense basis of the right has
> been held to exist in state case law. In a good number of them, there
> is an *explicit* mention of the right to keep guns for self-defense.
>
> http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
> http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowrkba.html

Democrats hate that because lots of guns means pissed off
citizens might use them against politicians some day.

> For example:
>
> Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the
> defense of himself and the state.
> [Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Michigan is full of niggers, of course there is a need for self-
defense.

> Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense
> of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.
> [Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

1/5th of Delaware is niggers. Draw your own conclusions.

> Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of
> himself and the state.
> [Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

Well, not really since the Sandy Hoax incident.

> New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in
> defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
> [Self-defense right explicitly protected.]

New Hampshire is full of pussies. You're only allowed to defend
yourself there after you have been robbed and killed.

Figure that one out.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Lance" <la...@example.com> wrote in message
news:2387e98afe42010f...@dizum.com...

That's easy, you are wrong. In New Hampshire,

"A person is justified in using deadly force upon another person when
he reasonably believes that such other person:
a. Is about to use unlawful, deadly force against the actor or a
third person;
b. Is likely to use any unlawful force against a person present
while committing or attempting to commit a burglary;
c. Is committing or about to commit kidnapping or a forcible sex
offense; or
d. Is likely to use any unlawful force in the commission of a felony
against the actor within such actor's dwelling or its curtilage.

"A Person who responds to a threat which would be considered by a
reasonable person as likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to
the person or to another by displaying a firearm or other means of
self-defense with the intent to warn away the person making the threat
shall not have committed a criminal act."