[Leica]

[robertmeier at usjet.net (Robert Meier)]

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