The 2nd Amendment - Applied Locally?

So you think you know and understand the Bill of Rights, eh?

How does it apply to local government?

No, let's not talk about 'goverment' at even a municiple level. How does it apply to your college football team, or your neighborhood?

Case #1: The Hurricanes

Shannon: Firearms will not be tolerated

By Jorge Milian

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

CORAL GABLES — Randy Shannon has issued a straightforward warning to his University of Miami football players:

Get caught carrying a firearm and your days as a Hurricane are over.

After two shooting incidents involving UM players last year, Shannon plans to enforce a "zero-tolerance'' policy regarding weapons.

"You get caught with a firearm, you're dismissed from the football team," UM's coach said Monday.

"They're gone. They know the rules. It's not hard rules. It's to protect them."

Asked about his players' constitutional right to own firearms, Shannon said: "I'm thinking about the University of Miami and the kids. When you have a firearm, there's a 50-50 chance that you're going to get hurt. So I said, 'Let's not put ourselves in those situations.'

"Make it a 100 percent chance that you're not going to hurt nobody and that nobody is going to get hurt."

You can't argue with the good intentions of Coach Shannon.

Last July, UM safety Willie Cooper was shot in the buttocks by an unknown assailant outside his home in South Miami. Teammate Brandon Meriweather, who shared the home with Cooper, pulled a pistol from his pants and fired three times at the gunman, who escaped.

Police determined that Meriweather acted in self-defense, and no arrests have been made in the case.

On Nov. 7, UM defensive tackle Bryan Pata was shot and killed at his apartment complex shortly after a Hurricanes practice. Pata, who police say owned several weapons, was shot in the back of the head and the case remains unsolved.

Meriweather, who has completed his collegiate eligibility, understands Shannon's policy.

"Guns don't do nothing but get you in trouble," Meriweather said. "There really is no use for a gun in college. You've got to get rid of them. It's no time for them. If you're a team player, you won't have no problem getting rid of them."

I don't think I agree with this statement. Meriweather demonstrably drove off an attacker and arguably saved the life of his team-mate. Pata had nobody watching his ... um ... back, as Cooper did. It seems to me that this may be a case FOR ownership if defensive firearms. But that's just my RKBA prejudice speaking.

Case #2: Community Suggests Gun Possession Is Illegal For Residents

March 19, 2007 02:15 PDT


ANTIOCH, Tenn.- Some people in a Nashville neighborhood are furious over a new rule that makes it illegal to own a gun.

Residents in Nashboro Village said it's unconstitutional and leaves them defenseless.

Two weeks ago, residents received a letter from their homeowners' association indicating that guns are not allowed on the property.

"It thought it was ironic that they say you can't have something when the United States government says you can," said resident Cristina Salajanu.

Salajanu would like to give her neighborhood management company a history lesson.

"I think it's unconstitutional," Salajanu said. "They can't tell you what to own or not to own in your own house."

Salajanu is talking about the Bill of Rights, specifically the Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to keep and bear arms. It's been an American freedom for 215 years but Salajanu and other residents said it's been taken away from them.

"Something needs to be done," she said.

Two weeks ago, the property management company at Nashboro Village told its residents no more guns on the property.

The residents protested, citing their Second Amendment rights. The 'village' responded positively ... more or less.

Officials with Ghertner and Company, the property manager at Nashboro Village, would not make an on-camera comment about the gun policy but said they plan on changing the rule soon to allow firearms on the property.

However, they would make it illegal to fire those guns, which residents say is still unconstitutional.

Let me get this straight. Now the property manager is saying that you can possess a gun, but you cannot fire it?

Aren't there already laws against discharging a firearm within city limits ... which I assume this is? And if you discharge it in a self-defense situation, isn't that justifiable by law? Does the community, then, consider itself justified in requiring the resident (who own their homes, withing the codicile of the community) leave? Can they DO that?

The Constitution and "Other Rights"
We think of the Constitution as limiting the powers of the Federal Government, usually. But we also recognize that it defines Civil Rights at every level of government ... in everything but the Second Amendment.

For example, we have the right of peaceful assembly, and free speech, under the Constitution. If your college or property manage decides that you cannot stand on a street corner and propound your political views to passersby, is your action not defensible under the Constitution?

Well ... yes. In fact, recent legal actions against College 'Free Speech Zones' have established that the Bill of Rights is a powerful threat to colleges who seek to prohibit 'hateful speech'. In fact, even non-verbal expression is protected, when academia is aggressively confronted.

It appears that the US Constitution is not merely a limit of the Federal Government, but in fact protects our rights in any venue.


Still, we continue to see these infringements imposed by non-governmental organizations as if the Constitution has no bearing on our day-to-day life.

This is, of course, most often (although not exclusively, since Freedom of Speech may now be identified as a 'hate crime') applied to the Second Amendment: " ... The Right To Bear Arms ...".

What do YOU think?


.