Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, KY) [50] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799): [51] "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." This was interpreted to include the right to carry a concealed sword in a cane.
An individual in Ohio has a constitutional right, by the United States Constitution and the Ohio State Constitution to bear arms. This is a right that is consistently upheld and respected by the state of Ohio and it is the responsibility of the general assembly to create a set of fair, just and uniform laws throughout Ohio when monitoring the ...
The phrase "constitutional carry" reflects the idea that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not allow restrictions on gun rights, including the right to carry or bear arms. [7] [8] The U.S. Supreme Court had never extensively interpreted the Second Amendment until the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. [9]
Many of the rights found within the state constitution align with the U.S. Constitution. These include the right to assemble (section 3), the right to bear arms (section 4), and protections against cruel and unusual punishment (section 9). [10] The Ohio Supreme Court holds that "the Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force," however.
But if "bear arms" means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add "for the purpose of killing game". The right "to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game" is worthy of the mad hatter. The dissenting justices were not persuaded by this argument. [269]
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to assemble and petition the government, the right to gather as a militia and to bear arms uninfringed, freedom from unreasonable searches and ...
The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law." This restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate ...
Ohioans have one effective weapon against this power and greed — the citizen-driven ballot initiative to change the constitution with a simple majority of voter approval, Mayda Sanchez Shingler ...