The RKBA is guaranteed by the constitution.
Private property rights are not.
We are letting them use non-constitutional rights to overthrow constitutional ones. Private property rights are important, but not at the expense of the constitution.
Dick
It is correct that the U.S. Constitution does not enumerate private property rights, but it clearly does recognize them. Amendment 4 reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Implicit in the grammar in Amendment 4 is the fact that "the people" can have "their... houses... and effects," and be secure in them.
The possessive pronoun "their" referring to "the people" clearly implies ownership, and "houses" and "effects" are forms of private property. Therefore, ownership of private property is implicitly recognized. Then, Amendment 9 says this:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
It is true that the right of the people to own private property is not enumerated, but is it assumed and implied. So, Amendment 9 refutes the view that if a right is not enumerated, it means the people don't have that right. The right to private property, assumed and implied in Amendment 4, is secured in Amendment 9.
Without private property rights, we ourselves are the possession of the state. If SC justices can find the right to privacy (or anything) in the "emanations of the penumbra" of the U.S. Constitution, it would take much less in the way of intellectual gymnastics to find the right to private property. (Of course, some liberal appointees can find an endless list of rights, or no rights at all, depending on their whims.)
Steve.
