The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old March 5, 2009, 03:43 PM   #51
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
HMMM.
How about this? 14 pages of guns have recently been taken off the 'approved list' in Kali.

FOUR GUNS are on the recently approved list.

Ken, your quick hit and run doesn't provide an explanation of why you think these limitations on our freedom, interstate commerce, supposedly reserved to be an area under Federal Jurisdiction, by the commerce Clause, aren't evidence of illegal laws?

By the way, I think these forums, and such discussions are vital to a free society. The exchange of ideas, the exchange of information, and the difference state to state is vital to the survival of our gun rights. Kali sends Pelosi, Fienstien and Boxer to congress, and, and, with that, it's clear I should amend the above to Big Sisters.

If TG is a true 'liberal', he will evaluate the information presented with an open mind, and, reevaluate his position, as more evidence becomes clear.

I grew up in Kali, and, at one point was taught the Pelosi/Fienstien/Boxer Constitution in our public schools. Same at UCSC. However, when in college and taking International law, it became real clear that the government with the largest guns has always been able to write International Laws, and, set the rules for the world.

Also, I learned from a couple veterans the joy of our Second Amendment right, and their view that firearms were vital to our security, both individual, and collective.

This came into clear focus on January 1st, 1982, where torential rains knocked power out for 3 days, and, we were on our own. We got together, protected our restaurant, and came through just fine. During this time we did hear gun shots in the area, and, the police came to investigate.
Between the dogs, our former veterans, we came out of it just fine. I would NOT have liked being helpless, unable to protect ourselves against armed attackers, when we were sitting on 150 grand in frozen lobster, and, a safe full of money.

Last edited by Socrates; March 5, 2009 at 03:53 PM.
Socrates is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 03:46 PM   #52
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
The bad guys always have the weapons they want, or can get them, and, until we seriously try and close our borders, always will. We live in a time when gangs far out number police. They have arms, and, they don't care about any laws.
I agree. Don't know about the gangs outnumbering police. I guess that depends wher you are. But I pretty much agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socartes
As law abiding citizens we are at a distinct disadvantage, because we actually try and follow the laws. All I want is the right to own, and protect myself from outlaws, and gangs.
I agree here again (this is spooky) We are further at a disadvantage because we generally have more to lose that is dear to us then a criminal. I fully support self defense and keeping and bearing arms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
Kali is the future of the US, so here are just a few laws.
Well, I hope not but I do acknowledge that the world is getting more "complicated" and things that were easy and simple when I was a child are not so much anymore. Not sure what to say about some of that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
Big Brother is here, and, he rules in Kalifornia.
No disagreement there. I always said CA was a nice place to visit but not to live. I would move to Tennessee We like guns!
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 04:06 PM   #53
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Quote:
I agree. Don't know about the gangs outnumbering police. I guess that depends wher you are. But I pretty much agree.
TG:
I've had information from a joint conference by LEO, state and Federal, concerning gangs. In the western 13 states, in 2000, it was estimated the gang members out numbered police 5 to 1.

They don't usually make much noise, but, on certain situations they do.

The Rodney King riots were orchestrated by a number of gangs. What happened was at a certain time, fires were lit all over L.A. all at the same time. LEO and Fire were driven out of the area by rifle and pistol fire, leaving no law in the L.A. area. The gangs looted at will, redistributing substantial wealth. Major stores just cleaned out, and, some burned to cover their tracks.

The only real defense was communities banding together, and shooting back. The Koreans got in trouble, since they used roof tops, and shot looters from there, on TV, thanks to the choppers.

Other communities, noteably West Hollywood(large gay population with serious belief in freedom)
, brought out barricades, rifles, shotguns, anything they had, and stopped anyone from coming out of the major L.A. area that looked like gang bangers. Brentwood, Pacific Palisaides, all did the same, and, stopped looting in their area, and worse, by force of arms. Police did nothing really, too much area, too few police.

Semi-auto and full auto weapons had a place in such situations. The threat of an M-60, or a Ma Duce would make a car full of gang members think twice about opening fire with their Mac 10's, and AK 47's.

Heck, even a few M-14's with 20 round mags would make them seriously consider another area.
Socrates is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 04:17 PM   #54
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Ken, your quick hit and run doesn't provide an explanation of why you think these limitations on our freedom, interstate commerce, supposedly reserved to be an area under Federal Jurisdiction, by the commerce Clause, aren't evidence of illegal laws?
Hot water? Water usage? Smog laws? Thats Big Brother?

WildisntthatabitoverwroughtAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 04:46 PM   #55
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
You don't make the connection that if the legislature doesn't trust me with hot water, how do you think they feel about guns?

Also, go here, look at home many guns are coming off the list, and how many are going on...

http://certguns.doj.ca.gov/

Recently Added Handgun Models

Recently Removed Handguns

By the way, Commerce, interstate, is any area of law that is reserved for the Federal Government. Any law effecting that has to face the Supremacy Clause, and should be overturned, since it appears Congress is authorized to do just about anything, short of the Lopez case.
Socrates is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 04:49 PM   #56
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildalaska
Hot water? Water usage? Smog laws? Thats Big Brother?
I think "nanny state" is probably the term used most of the time that I hear. I believe in Europe they tax fatty foods more than other types.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
Heck, even a few M-14's with 20 round mags would make them seriously consider another area.
Oh, I don't know if you would even need those. I am not an expert on riots but I have seen mobs in action and from what I saw they were mostly opportunists who did not want to die for your TV. Even a decent hunting rifle, bolt or lever action would make them tend to look elsewhere IMO.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 05:02 PM   #57
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
TG:

That, I'm pretty sure is what most had. These gangs are not doing stuff by chance. They plan out an attack, load a car up,
6 guys, armed to the hilt, and drive into an area, target the house, rob, rape, murder, kidnap, etc. Mac 10's and AK 47's, full auto, Tech 9's, all those 'illegal' guns they have.. LAPD is not really ready to mount SWAT operations in these areas. Getting in and out without being targeted, and noted, is impossible.

There are certain beaches in LA that are now banger beaches, and, you better stay the heck off that beach...

The latest trend is the gangs are having members enlist, since many have clean records, and, they now bring home military tactics to street wars, and, police encounters.
Socrates is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 05:02 PM   #58
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
You don't make the connection that if the legislature doesn't trust me with hot water, how do you think they feel about guns?
Move if you dont like it. Thats what your fellow citizens want. There is nothing Big Brother about hot water laws, just like adulterated foods, water quality rules, etc. Does it have a rational relation to the health safety and welfare of the public? Is it an unreasonable burden?

Guns have nothing to do with it.

WildthereisyourrighttohotwaterAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 05:47 PM   #59
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Under discussion is the Kali 'list', which conflicts with the Commerce Clause, by restricting interstate commerce, in this case guns.
Socrates is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 09:27 PM   #60
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Tuttle, you know there have been gun control laws since the country was founded? Do you think there should be none?
Which specific laws? I'm thinking two wrongs don't make a right. Why weren't they introduced into the BOR? I really don't think we need much of any. I know you're viewpoint on full autos. I'm not bent out of shape that there's restrictions on full autos. But I personally would rather see it abolished. Seeing that I don't consider WMDs, etc. to be a firearm, the govt. can restrict all they want...and they should. I'm presuming laws as far as possession only.

Quote:
Where would you draw the line at what is a firearm? That can cover a lot. Some contend that since warships and cannon could be privately owned back then that all modern military weapons today should be protected.
My personal opinion? One that you can handle on your own without the aid of a vehicle.

Quote:
BTW, if the Constitution is absolute - how come we have amendments?
Those guys who made senators elected directly were traitors?
Like I said, my version of absolute may be hypocritical. Amendments were part of the process of forming our government. During the infant stages, IIRC, it was necessary for directly elected senators. Like Mike Irwin stated, they didn't just jot down the COTUS and BOR and call it good. I understand the growing pains such as slavery and womens' suffrage. But we're a well established country now and have proven data that many additional gun laws do not work.

Most know the cliche. When a talented sports team hits a losing streak, the coach stops the play schemes and goes back to the fundamentals. We NEED to get back to the fundamentals.

Quote:
Folks argue that owning various things such not be banned as they are 'arms'. But arms evolved. The founders didn't know from full auto Glock 18s. Maybe we will have laser guns someday. Should we rewrite the 2nd to say - no laws controlling weapons based on the current gun powder techniques of 2009. So when the United Federation of Planets decides to ban hand held phasers, you would be ok with that?
And what crime has really been committed with a Glock 18? My point is just because it fires more bullets per minute than a musket doesn't mean there should be restrictions. And, no, I don't think I'd be OK with banning of hand held phasers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
I'm just curious. Has anyone ever been involved in this type of discussion and actually had the other person change their mind?
It is an interesting exchange of ideas but it does seem to get pointless after awhile.
I mostly agree with TG on this one. I can see your point, but definitely disagree with it being pointless. Think of having a discussion in person. Do you only make a couple of statements and end the conversation? NOT ME! I love to have civil debates and discussions on topics that I don't know a lot about. Whether I have a formed opinion or not, I still take in what others have to say and analize the discussion at a later time. Depending on the person, I don't think it's a battle of who's right. Just a healthy discussion...that's all...
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 10:56 PM   #61
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
Well, to be specific: all federal laws, since the Constitution prohibits them.

That leaves state laws. If the second amendment is extended against the states, through the 14th amendment, then all state laws as well.
Socrates is offline  
Old March 5, 2009, 11:45 PM   #62
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttle8
Which specific laws?
Today or back then? If you are talking about back then you can listen to the oral arguments in Heller and maybe you have, where they talk about laws in Massachusetts about loaded weapons in the home and such. Pretty Interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttle8
I'm thinking two wrongs don't make a right.
Not sure I understand what you mean. What are the two wrongs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttle8
Why weren't they introduced into the BOR?
Because I don't think the Founding Fathers ever believed that a right was absolute and that all of them could be regulated. Anyway, IIRC the BOR was not even applicable to the States until the 14A?
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 6, 2009, 12:47 AM   #63
jg0001
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 24, 2007
Posts: 551
Quote:
Move if you dont like it. Thats what your fellow citizens want. There is nothing Big Brother about hot water laws, just like adulterated foods, water quality rules, etc. Does it have a rational relation to the health safety and welfare of the public? Is it an unreasonable burden?
Such statements are pathetic, Wild. "Move if you don't like it"? Seriously? Gradually nicking away at personal freedoms and seeing no effect from it politically just emboldens politicians to meddle further and further in our private lives. The trend should worry you even if the current things being limited/restricted does not.

What will you do, Wild, if the president & gang call for federal restrictions on guns to the extent it affected you? Would you move? Perhaps you should move from your very free state of Alaska to England.

Change doesn't always come quickly, nor can your fight against that change wait until it is upon your own doorstep. If the lower 48 gradually started restricting personal freedoms, your beloved state wouldn't be able to hold out against that tide. California is a massive state, and things that get passed there could just as easily end up getting pushed through elsewhere.

People shouldn't always flee, sometimes they need to fight. People of color and women were discriminated against for decades in the USA via state and local laws. Should they have found somewhere else to live or should they have fought to get back their 'inalienable rights' and a measure of equality? Just because someone manages to pass a law doesn't mean the fight is over.

California should be a warning of the direction we're headed in. England even moreso.

Last edited by jg0001; March 6, 2009 at 10:17 AM.
jg0001 is offline  
Old March 6, 2009, 10:09 PM   #64
TEDDY
Junior member
 
Join Date: December 10, 2006
Location: MANNING SC
Posts: 837
amendments

yes there is a way to amend the constitution but I have seen no amendment to the second,it clarly sated tha the right of the people to keep and bare arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.it says nothing about BUT.and the scotus did not rule on regulations they ducked it.and ruled only on a narrow point.whats the 15 amendment say, can you have a partial civil right.all the gun laws were put in place to prevent a class or group of people from having arms.
the blacks were one the political parties another.all intended to prevent the defence from attack.
TEDDY is offline  
Old March 6, 2009, 10:53 PM   #65
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Today or back then? If you are talking about back then you can listen to the oral arguments in Heller and maybe you have, where they talk about laws in Massachusetts about loaded weapons in the home and such. Pretty Interesting.
Just because they introduced laws back then just after the BOR was introduced doesn't necessarily mean it was valid.

One of my basic points is laws upon laws are being bombarded on us for no good reason. If we keep accepting "reasonable" laws the very foundation of gun rights isn't going to be a foundation anymore.

Let's say you like old stock muscle cars...like a '64 1/2 mustang. There's nothing finer than seeing an unmolested 'stang with low miles found in some grandma's barn. You guarantee that by restoring it to original condition. You give it to your son. He goes off and chops/channels it. Hacks up the frame even more by tubbing it. Don't forget about air bags, dechroming, recaro seats, humongous non-functional spoiler, 350(yes, Chevy 350) engine, turbocharger(s), headers, sound system with 24 speakers and 6 monitors (2 in the headrests), ground effects body kit, and koenig wheels on toyo tires.

Is this a mustang? Well, yes. But is isn't a mustang anymore, either. The 2A is still one of our bill of rights, but has so much garbage (laws) attached to it that it really isn't the foundation we follow anymore. The laws take over and this is never what the founding fathers intended, IMO.

So, is the Constitution an absolute? Should be and followed absolutely. Our system is in place to allow amendments as necessary and there's nothing wrong with it. Living in Cook county Illinois and not even allowed to own a handgun is....
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old March 7, 2009, 02:41 AM   #66
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
Such statements are pathetic, Wild. "Move if you don't like it"? Seriously? Gradually nicking away at personal freedoms and seeing no effect from it politically just emboldens politicians to meddle further and further in our private lives. The trend should worry you even if the current things being limited/restricted does not.
Somehow I fail to see the connection between hot water governors and the end of freedom as we know it

WildnomanisanislandAlaska TM
Wildalaska is offline  
Old March 8, 2009, 01:20 AM   #67
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,120
I think that the words "shall not be infringed" pretty muchs sums it up. Virtually all Federal gun control laws are unConstitutional. Laws limiting felons and criminals from having firearms are Constitutional however, because criminals do not have the same rights that the rest of us enjoy. This right is absolute for citizens in good standing. Keeping and bearing arms is NOT the same as free speech. I cannot cause harm to someone by keeping and bearing arms. Therefore the right is absolute. Period.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old March 8, 2009, 01:16 PM   #68
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Towe
I think that the words "shall not be infringed" pretty muchs [sic] sums it up.
The words, "Congress shall make no law" ... "abridging the freedom of speech," means exactly that. As the Courts developed the interpretation of these phrases, especially after incorporation, it has come to mean that no political body can make repressive laws on speech. Speech itself has come to mean almost any expressive act.

Yet....

Try to hold an unannounced political rally in any residential neighborhood, in any city, town or village in America, at midnight. There are express laws that prohibit such an act. How can they do this, in the face of such an absolute constitutional prohibition?

The answer is quite simple. No right is absolute. You do not have to right to express yourself (Free Speech) when it will interfere with the rights of others.

In the admittedly extreme (and possibly absurd) example above, such speech would interfere with the rights of the people that live in that residential area, to enjoy a peaceful nights sleep. Hence the variations on Disturbing the Peace laws.

All speech may be regulated as to Time, Place and Manner. Such restrictions have been in place from almost the inception of this country, because they place the rights of others as equal to the rights of those who wish to express themselves.

"Shall make no law," is pretty strict language, yet the rights contained in the first amendment are regulated. Everyday. Do you think these regulations (law) are unconstitutional, also?

"... The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," does not mean that regulation(s) cannot be placed upon the right. Like it or not, government can regulate the Manner by which you bear arms. The government may also regulate the Place in which you bear arms. Likewise, the Times.

To the same extent, the Keeping of arms may also be regulated.

If you think in such absolute terms, educate me on why speech restrictions can be regulated, but not the keeping and bearing of arms?
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old March 8, 2009, 01:20 PM   #69
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antipitas
If you think in such absolute terms, educate me on why speech restrictions can be regulated, but not the keeping and bearing of arms?
I was wondering when you would step in.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 8, 2009, 01:33 PM   #70
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,319
Interesting viewpoint

Quote:
If the meaning of the Constitution were always "plain," I know of nine ladies and gents (hint: they wear flowing black robes a lot) who'd be out of a job.
I know it is a grey area, but I have alwways believed that the purpose and intent of having a Supreme Court is to determine whether or not individual LAWS are in conflict with the "plain language" of the Constitution. And to settle jurisdictional disputes between the branches of govt.

I do not think that it is the proper business of the Court (any Court) to rule on what the Constitution "means". Rather it is their job to rule on whether or not a law is in conflict with the Constitution.

Obviously, in order to do that they have to understand what the Constitutions says, and the simplest standard (which is the one that should always be employed) is to take the words at plain face value, considering the intent of the Founders (as expressed in the other documents written at the time), and the language as used in that era.

Our system is, for better or worse, that any law passed is valid and legal, until nullified by the Court. If a law has never been judged, then it is "legal", until it is ruled not to be so. Period.

However, it is also written that we do not have a duty, or moral obligation to obey unconstituional laws. And indeed, we do not. You may feel a law is unconstitutional, and disobey, that is your moral right. But, you will be subject to any and all penalties for disobeying that law, until, and unless it is ruled unconstitutional.

So, for better or worse, ALL gun laws are legal and Constitutional, until struck down. They may be distasteful. They may be clearly invalid to any reasoning individual (like the DC ban) BUT until the High Court rules, they are the law.

The mindset that the High Court is there to interpret the Constitution should not be encouraged. That is not their job. Interpreting the Constitution allows them to change it by judicial decree, and is very much at the whim and will of those individuals on the bench. This is not their job, changing the Constitution is a structured process, involving both the Federal and state legislatures, not the court.

It is all certainly a matter of semantics and viewpoint, but that's what law is, isn't it?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old March 8, 2009, 01:56 PM   #71
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I do not think that it is the proper business of the Court (any Court) to rule on what the Constitution "means". Rather it is their job to rule on whether or not a law is in conflict with the Constitution.
Which to me a layman, is six of one half dozen of the other. How can they say it conflicts without telling us what it means? Each time they rule it gives us yet another insight into the COTUS.

What I read in Heller is that we citizens have an individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to service in the militia. Huge opinion IMO in that it decoupled militia service from our right of individual self defense. I think Heller might later on be (pardon the pun) hell on very oneous gun control and possibly render void some bans. Maybe a new AWB? We'll see.

Full auto and military weapons? No. I don't think so. Background check thrown out? No again. CCW? Not sure we will get much help there either.

Should be exciting.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 8, 2009, 03:02 PM   #72
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,556
Quote:
If you think in such absolute terms, educate me on why speech restrictions can be regulated, but not the keeping and bearing of arms?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the use of words such as "regulations" and "restrictions" are being used incorrectly. A person doesn't have the right to exercise the 1A if it interferes with rights of another person. Call it a restriction or a regulation, but there doesn't need to be additional laws. Your rights are absolute until your actions inhibit others to exercise theirs.

I think there's a miscommunication on that issue. I'm all for a law abiding citizen having ONE S&W 686 in his house or 5,000 ARs stacked wall to wall. It bears NO harm and does NOT interfere with the fellow citizen next door. He has an absolute right to keep and bear these arms.
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old March 8, 2009, 03:49 PM   #73
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuttle8
A person doesn't have the right to exercise the 1A if it interferes with rights of another person. Call it a restriction or a regulation, but there doesn't need to be additional laws.
But it is a law and that is what places the restriction on the right. How else could you do it? It would have to be a law or you could not assert against the behavior.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old March 8, 2009, 04:28 PM   #74
Socrates
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 5, 2005
Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 5,866
The Constitution is SUPPOSED to limit government, Federal and state law. The tort system is designed to prevent harm, and make people whole after they are damaged by misuse of liberties. For instance Libel and Slander, tort principals, are the remedies for misuse of Free Speech.

The Federal government has NO place limiting First or Second Amendment issues, period. The concept is the states, with their laws in both the tort system, and criminal system, were supposed to be the regulators for stopping harm done to citizens, NOT the Federal government.

Slavery screwed that system up, as it has done to many other Constitutional rights, by extending the BORights against the states, through Equal Protection, and the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court gutted that with the Slaughterhouse cases, and now, nearly 130 years later, we are finally facing that the Amendment did incorporate the BORights against the States as well. The system has required the Supreme Court to 'judge' if the BORights amendments, individually, applied against the states. That was NOT the intent of the 14th amendment, but, that's how the court went about using it.

Ruling that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, which Heller represents, and, that government regulation of the area is 'reasonable' is NOT a logical representation of the law, but, a neccesary one to finally get the area of law changed.
Socrates is offline  
Old March 9, 2009, 12:43 PM   #75
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
I know it is a grey area, but I have alwways believed that the purpose and intent of having a Supreme Court is to determine whether or not individual LAWS are in conflict with the "plain language" of the Constitution. And to settle jurisdictional disputes between the branches of govt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Which to me a layman, is six of one half dozen of the other. How can they say it conflicts without telling us what it means? Each time they rule it gives us yet another insight into the COTUS.
I think TG has it exactly right, particularly as regards Heller and the Second Amendment: "...it decoupled militia service from our right of individual self defense." The decoupling was a necessary interpretation of the meaning, which isn't all that obvious.

If it were only a matter of determining the status of a law in relation to some sort of idealized "plain meaning," no Supreme Court decision would ever need to be revisited or overturned. What was the decision in Brown v. Board of Education, for example, if not a reinterpretation of the meaning of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to say that separate facilities for the separate races were inherently unequal? Plessy v. Ferguson interpreted the meaning of the equal protection clause one way; Brown interpreted it differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
Our system is, for better or worse, that any law passed is valid and legal, until nullified by the Court. If a law has never been judged, then it is "legal", until it is ruled not to be so. Period.
Exactly -- this is the point I was making in a previous post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
It is all certainly a matter of semantics and viewpoint, but that's what law is, isn't it?
Well... semantics, syntax, and viewpoint, in the case of the 2nd Amendment: if the syntax were clearer, the semantics would take care of themselves. But that's why interpretation is necessary -- it's those darn commas, and deciding what counts as a subordinate clause.

Call me a deconstructionist or worse, if you will, but I find the notion that there's some sort of "plain meaning" of language that exists on some level other than how humans interpret it (which may vary) sort of naive...

Last edited by Vanya; March 9, 2009 at 04:49 PM. Reason: grammar, oddly enough.
Vanya is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16009 seconds with 7 queries