has anyone had a personal experience with this right, as far as the right being taken away or infringed upon?\nlegal cases etc.
201323
Ok..First off, there is no constitutional right to bear arms.  Bottom line, it doesn't exist.  I know you've heard politicians talk over and over about it, but the fact is the federal appellate courts are in near unanimous agreement that the 2nd Amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms, rather it is a guarantee of a militia...not my argument.. that's waht the courts say - that's what the law is.  One other point to drive this home.  The 2nd Amendment...whatever it means...does not apply to the states.  If the amendment does prevent the federal government from taking away individuals right to bear arms (which as I said earlier it doesn't), it does not apply to the states.  The states are free to ban all weapons of any sort (Washington D.C. does this by the way..).  SO bottom line...there is no constitutional right to bear arms.
545279
It is our constitutional right to do so.\n\nThe last time that this was tried it brought about the Civil War.  Is this really what you want?
297998
I fully understand where you are coming from with this issue. Times have changed and so has the law. Here's a website that keeps up with it
317837
You are supposed to not work and hang out in your states Legislature on a daily basis, As most attorneys do not even know the whole law and revisions......Remember my post about the mustang in the living room, The restraining order was from Broward County (Ft Lauderdale) My 2 attorneys didnt even know that they had recently been revised to Statewide!!!! I was Looking at Up to Life for that One,Burgulary of an occupied dwelling using a vehicle as an instrumantallity to commit Burgulary!!! MY OWN HOUSE!!!! Or our 2nd home!!! Since my marriage with my X_WIFE Ive been in more stupid trouble!!!!And Ive never laid a hand on her....Someone in her past did and I got the rath!!!!GOOD LUCK........NJ and NY Have driving w cellphone laws
375207
"However, when did this country decide that hate crime language is O.K. to spew at a PAYING audience? Why shouldn't the group of people offended sue his *ss off?"\n\nUhh... when the First Amendment was ratified way back in 1776... It isn't "illegal", so the lawsuit would have no merit and be tossed on Constitutional grounds... By the way, I find your "hate crime language" comment highly offensive- expect to hear from my attorney!
226805
I didn't read the addition biblical blah blah (sorry) you posted but, I do agree that a right DOES need a wrong to be identified as a right. But, it is right even before the discovery of the wrong.\n\nThe wrong just brings the right to the spotlight.
174542
I have never had that happen.  I have had cops come in and pull out guns and all on us.  Then they left and apparently they were in the wrong place.  They really sound to me like they have done something that they should be letting youin on.  I would call a lawyer and see if they can give you a free consultation that seems a little like harrassment.  Although they did have a warrant so who can tell.
162953
It depends how the egress was granted.  You must allow them, but that doesn't mean you must allow people other then them depending on how the egress was worded.  Without that it's sort of hard to determine what "rights" she was granted.
3511
http://www.rightsatwork.com.au/\n\nHeres a start for you.
207852
I think any advice you get from this site should be taken with caution. Probably the only legal advice I'd actually follow from here is, "call a lawyer".
304759
Yup where I live it is legal and it has happened to me.  There is nothing you can do about it.  I even went as far as getting a lawyer and they even told me there was nothing that could be done.  However, the lawyer contacted the place where I worked and they changed my file to say I left rather than I was fired.
617033
You should definately talk to an attorney, as the stakes of losing your rights here are too high.  I suggest you check out: http://www.referraljuncture.com .\n\n\nBest of luck.
495398
you are absolutely right Gina, it is appalling the conservative legislation. I talked to my phillosophy professor who is from Massachusetts, a self-described flaming liberal. lol And I said I don't know why i'm so angry about this that i can't get over that the amendment was passed. \nshe said, is it because this is a free country and people are supposed to have the right to do virtually anything that doesnt hurt anyone else without being descriminated against? I'm like yeah thats basically it. \nshe siad well i'm with ya. solidarity! lol.\nSOLIDARITY!!!!!
288633
Get a laywer today!!! You need to ask them what your rights are in that state. If you get a good one, you should not have to travel down there. He can get you copies of everything you need and start procedings to get the people out of your house. If it were SC, I would recommend a good one. Good luck, wish I could do more.
233944
Exactly _what_ right do you think was violated?\n\nIt sounds like they did something you did not like - this is different from a civil rights violation.\n\nPS - it sounds like you are whining.
488182
I live In Mount Vernon washington - My wife got rearended by an illegal alien on his way to get free food - as when the cop came all he had was a social services card as an ID - no driver's lic and no insurance and no registration - and yes the cop didn't call INS just gave him a ticket and let him go....\nThankfully my wife was in our truck and only had minor light damage - his car was totaled....thankfully.\nNo there are two sets of laws one for those of us who are here legally and one for those who choose to break the law every day....But the worst part is there are people who think that's okay ....boggles the mind....how they get away with so much....
536547
This is a difficult case with no easy answers. \n\nThe lawyer who represented Ms Campbell in court sums up the other side's case: \n"This was not a decision about custody. It was a decision on whether Mr Rana had acted improperly by violating the court order made at the Court of Session in Scotland in June last year." \n\nFor arguments for both sides: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/highlands_and_islands/6192406.stm\n\ncc