Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Ianal, but 4th amendment? Sent from my iPhone On Dec 8, 2008, at 3:20 PM, "Robert Meier" <robertmeier@usjet.net> wrote: > Where does the Constitution state the right to privacy quite clearly? > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Seth Rosner" <sethrosner@nycap.rr.com > > > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:56 PM > Subject: Re: [Leica] > > >> Looking through the archive, I noticed that last Monday Larry >> Zeitlin wrote: >> >> The US Supreme Court recently held that a correct interpretation of >> the Second Amendment permits ownership of guns. Some years ago It >> also found that Constitution implies an individual's right to >> privacy. The Leica is one of the best tools for invading privacy ever >> invented. One can easily justify keeping guns and banning Leicas. >> >> Complicated, isn't it? >> >> Actually, it's much simpler than that. What the Supreme Court held >> is that the District of Columbia cannot constitutionally ban the >> possession of any firearm in the District, even in one's home. And >> the Constitution doesn't imply a right of privacy, it states it >> quite clearly. But the Leica isn't at all a tool for the invasion >> of privacy since the right to privacy evaporates once one is in a >> public place, even an indoor public place. Proving once again just >> how misleading constitutional generalizations can be. >> >> Seth >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information