XPost: talk.politics.drugs, talk.politics.guns, alt.current-events.usa   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.usa.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.bush, alt.law-enforcement   
   From: theloneweasel@yahoo.com   
      
   Eric Johnson  wrote in   
   news:BC00F9D2.3B02C%erj66@xs4all.nl:   
      
   > On 13-12-2003 15:50, in article   
   > Xns94505A044AEB8theloneweaselyahooco@130.133.1.4, "The Lone   
   > Weasel"  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Eric Johnson  wrote in   
   >> news:BC00A16F.3B015%erj66@xs4all.nl:   
   >>   
   >>> On 13-12-2003 01:13, in article   
   >>> 3fda579e.7570395@news.melbpc.org.au, "Thom"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>> No they're not.  I don't own a car, I take public   
   >>>> transport, walk or ride my mountain bike.  Cars are not   
   >>>> necessary at all plus you have no constitutional right   
   >>>> to a car, I do for a gun however.   
   >>>   
   >>> Actually one does have a constitutional right to have a   
   >>> car. The privilege part comes in only if you wish to   
   >>> drive it on public streets.   
   >>   
   >> Where do you find a constitutional right to have a car in   
   >> the U.S. Constitution?   
   >   
   > Amendment 5, or the fifth clause in the Bill of Rights:   
      
   Can't produce the entire amendment?   
      
   Fifth Amendment   
      
   "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise   
   infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a   
   Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval   
   forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of   
   War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the   
   same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor   
   shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against   
   himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without   
   due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for   
   public use, without just compensation."   
      
   The clause you vaguely refer to is about due process in   
   criminal cases.   
      
   "...nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness   
   against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,   
   without due process of law..."   
      
   Which you dishonestly chopped down to...   
      
   >  "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,   
   >  without due process of   
   > law."   
      
   So you're saying that criminals can't be deprived of their cars   
   without due process, but can have their cars confiscated and   
   their driving privileges revoked if they choose to drive   
   recklessly like Mr. Janklow?   
      
   That's not a constitutional right to possess certain things,   
   it's basically a proscription of unreasonable bail - property =   
   your money, or what you have to sell or mortgage to make bail,   
   and you'd be right if you claimed that this right is abused   
   especially when courts set bail for poor defendants charged   
   with drug crimes.   
      
   > If they cannot deny you life, liberty, or property without   
   > due process [as described in other parts of this document],   
   > this implies a right to have [been] acquired and been in   
   > possession [of] life, liberty and property (no puns or   
   > innuendo intended by use of the word, "possession"),   
      
   None inferred.   
      
   I think you're trying to get substantive due process out of   
   procedural due process.   
      
   Try the Fourteenth Amendment, where you also lose but it's more   
   interesting.   
      
   > Cars are property. You have a right under the fifth   
   > amendment clearly to acquire and keep property.   
      
   Non sequitor, even under your mistaken view of Fifth Amendment   
   due process.   
      
   The state has the power to provide for public safety, so it   
   could conceivably deprive you of your driving license and   
   confiscate your car.  That happens all the time, doesn't it?   
      
   Same with guns.   
      
   ___________________   
      
      
   Tuesday, October 8, 2002   
      
   © 2002 - The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal   
      
   San Angelo gun owner convicted of criminal charges   
      
   BY ELIZABETH LANGTON   
      
   AVALANCHE-JOURNAL   
      
   A gun owner whose case sparked national debate over the   
   Second Amendment's protection of individuals was convicted   
   Monday of criminal charges that a Lubbock judge ruled   
   unconstitutional.   
      
   Timothy Emerson, a San Angelo doctor, was convicted by a   
   federal jury on three counts of possessing a firearm while   
   under a court-issued protective order during his 1998   
   divorce.   
      
   U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings dismissed the charges in   
   1999, saying the Second Amendment protected the gun-   
   ownership rights of individuals, not just organized   
   militias.   
      
   The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans   
   overruled Cummings' dismissal in October 2001. The appeals   
   court agreed that the Second Amendment applied to   
   individuals, but that the government could at times restrict   
   those rights.   
      
   The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving Emerson   
   to face trial. Cummings presides over cases from Lubbock,   
   Abilene and San Angelo.   
      
   --   
      
   Join the NRA Blacklist!   
   http://www.nrablacklist.com/   
      
   The Lone Weasel   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)