The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 13, 2009, 05:30 PM   #51
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,741
That all depends on the rules, and you point of view

Quote:
The point is that the world is a better place when there are rules and regulations in it.
And when the rules say that all persons of a particular class must wear an identifying mark (such as a yellow star or pink triangle), is the world a better place because of those rules?


Not to me it isn't!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 05:37 PM   #52
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
Quote:
And when the rules say that all persons of a particular class must wear an identifying mark (such as a yellow star or pink triangle), is the world a better place because of those rules?


Not to me it isn't!
Right... because getting a drivers licence or a gun permit is just like "That."

Last edited by ImprobableJoe; June 13, 2009 at 06:29 PM.
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 09:10 PM   #53
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
The point is that the world is a better place when there are rules and regulations in it.
Rules and regulations are fine, and necessary, as long as they do not negate a persons rights.

Rules and regulations are mere legislation. Rights are not, they are as natural as the air we breathe.

Quote:
Right... because getting a drivers licence or a gun permit is just like "That."
It is exactly like that. A specific class of persons are required to produce "papers" to qualify to "use" the rights bestowed on all men.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "anarchy rules" We are merely pointing out how a seemingly innocuous rule can slowly, and without much notice, for seemingly good reasons, erode an inalienable right, down to a mere "privilege" in the minds of some.

Just look at the staggering number of rules, laws, regulations, ordinances, and taxes that are tied to freely traveling, and owning a firearm. Both are basic human rights, but those rights sit in the acid bath of "public safety".
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; June 13, 2009 at 09:28 PM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 09:23 PM   #54
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
“The use of the automobile as a necessary adjunct to the earning of a livelihood in modern life requires us in the interest of realism to conclude that the right to use an automobile on the public highways partakes of the nature of a liberty within the meaning of the constitutional guarantees of which the citizen not be deprived without due process of law.” Berberian v. Lussier, 139 A.2d 869, 872; 87 R.I. 226, 231 (1958). See also: Schecter v. Killingsworth, 380 P.2d 136, 140; 93 Ariz. 273 (1963).

The right to operate a motor vehicle [an automobile] upon the public streets and highways is not a mere privilege. It is a right of liberty, the enjoyment of which is protected by the guarantees of the federal and state constitutions.” Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).

“The court makes it clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade or calling; thus, when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation.” Wingfield v. Fielder 2d Ca. 3d 213 (1972).


There we have it settled, drivers licenses are illegal and cannot be required by any state or local government. I just burned mine and am now requesting at least $100 from each member of this forum to cover my legal expenses for the SCOTUS hearing. Once I am falsley arrested and win I will sue for false arrest in order to pay each of you back at least double.
PT111 is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 09:38 PM   #55
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
There we have it settled, drivers licenses are illegal and cannot be required by any state or local government. I just burned mine and am now requesting at least $100 from each member of this forum to cover my legal expenses for the SCOTUS hearing. Once I am falsley arrested and win I will sue for false arrest in order to pay each of you back at least double.

Now there is a man who is not afraid to stand in the face of tyranny!! I am in for the $100.00, just have someone PM me when your case reaches SCOTUS and it is yours.


Seriously, was there a point ?
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 09:44 PM   #56
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
The point is that the requirement for a drivers license is illegal and not enforcable according to the post by Antipitas or at least that is what I got out of it. Did I read incorrectly? There are 19 cases listed there saying that.
PT111 is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 10:17 PM   #57
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
Did I read incorrectly?
No, but let me point out a couple of statements that qualify the posting by Antipitas ;

Quote:
This is one possible future of gun rights.
And to expand the theme a bit, I said ;

Quote:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that "anarchy rules" We are merely pointing out how a seemingly innocuous rule can slowly, and without much notice, for seemingly good reasons, erode an inalienable right, down to a mere "privilege" in the minds of some.

Just look at the staggering number of rules, laws, regulations, ordinances, and taxes that are tied to freely traveling, and owning a firearm. Both are basic human rights, but those rights sit in the acid bath of "public safety".
Does that make it any more plain ?
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 13, 2009, 10:25 PM   #58
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
PT111, did you or did you not voluntarily apply to your State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (or whatever your State may call it), for a license to drive? Was a gun put to your head, in order to "make" you apply?

Or did you just do it, because that's what everyone does?

The State can require anyone who makes a living driving commercially, to have a license. Same thing for the registration of commercial vehicles. The Feds can (and have) require certain licenses for interstate transport.

None of that is unconstitutional.

Nor is it unconstitutional for you, a private person, to volunteer yourself to be commercially licensed - thereby falling under the rules of your states licensing schemes.

Nor is it as easy to rid yourself of the States money scheme, once you have entered into it. It will cost you. Time, Money and lots of court appearences.

However, so as not to veer the thread beyond what it has already gone, the only point I'm trying to make, is that it would be just as easy to do the same thing with gun rights, as have been done with travel rights.

One of those first steps is mandatory training. Be it by the Feds or the State.

It's easy to rant and rave about "slippery slopes," but it's quite another to explain exactly how the "slip" is achieved. So regardless of what you think about the licensing of all drivers, the mechanism for control can be the same. It could very well be that the mandatory training for a license that is already "required," is the "slip" towards mandatory licensing of all gun owners and the registration of all guns.

That is exactly how we went from licensing of drivers and registration of vehicles of a commercial nature to those of the private citizen.

That's the "slope" of the "slip."
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 12:21 AM   #59
YodaMage
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: Grand Island, NY
Posts: 38
Freedom of religion is also a right. Do we need to re-open that can of worms as well?
YodaMage is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 12:41 AM   #60
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
I am lost, are you saying that DLs are unconstitutional?
Wagonman is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 12:45 AM   #61
SteelJM1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 1, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 496
A drivers license isn't needed to drive. You can drive your car or what have you on your private property all you want without a license, as can your kid or dog. Once you decide to use public (i.e. state or federally maintained) roads, then you need the license to operate on them. So drivers licenses are not unconstitutional. You can walk from Cape Cod to L.A. without a license if you want. They're not infringing on your right for free travel.

SteelJM1 is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 12:50 AM   #62
riggins_83
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 19, 2009
Location: Wherever I may roam
Posts: 1,484
Quote:
I support a test to verify US citizenship and non-felon status. Period, end of sentence.
+1. The basic class tells you not to wave a firearm around loaded, check to be sure it's loaded, maintain your guns, etc. If you don't have enough ambition to practice then.... perhaps it's time to start.

I'd love a nationwide CCW or at least everything but the people's republic of CA. That state just scares me!
riggins_83 is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 06:26 AM   #63
PT111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2007
Posts: 1,041
Quote:
A drivers license isn't needed to drive. You can drive your car or what have you on your private property all you want without a license, as can your kid or dog. Once you decide to use public (i.e. state or federally maintained) roads, then you need the license to operate on them. So drivers licenses are not unconstitutional. You can walk from Cape Cod to L.A. without a license if you want. They're not infringing on your right for free travel.
I thought that Antipita's list of court decisions demonstrated that we did not need a license to drive on the public highways. That was my understanding of it.
PT111 is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 08:29 AM   #64
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
This is turning into one of those weird "Federal income taxes are unconstitutional, we don't have to pay them!" conversations, except with firearms. People who follow the anti-tax conspiracy theory, and stop paying taxes? They wind up in jail.

It is the same with firearms. You can make all sorts of claims about the legality of registration and licencing, but at the end of the day the actions of the federal government are 100% Consitutional and legally binding, unless they are later overturned. Just because something is a legal right doesn't mean that it isn't also fair game for regulations. The government created the right, and the government gets to set the limits and rules.
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 08:42 AM   #65
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImprobablyJoe
Yeah! The government already took our cars, and they're going to come after our guns next!!
You are laughing right now; but in a dozen years when they come for your carbon-emitting, fossil-fuel guzzling SUV, you probably won't be chuckling so hard. The Government already gives preferential tax treatment to hybrid vehicles. It isn't at all far-fetched to see them treating SUVs like so-called "assault weapons" in the future and some lobbying groups are already advancing those kinds of plans right now.

However, I would love to see guns treated like cars. It would be the biggest deregulation of guns ever.

You see, that is one problem your little one-liner overlooks. There is currently no large organized movement of people in the media and Congress who have the total elimination of cars as their stated goal; but it turns out there are lots of people in Congress and the media who feel that way.

If someone says they plan to punch you in the face and tries to do it, does it not count until they actually succeed? Should you continue to stand still on the basis that they haven't actually made contact yet?

Finally, exactly what problem is regulation solving in this case. Right now the number of accidental firearms deaths is miniscule. So exactly what problem are we correcting by more regulation?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 10:02 AM   #66
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
The government created the right,
Joe, Respectfully Sir, You could not possibly be more incorrect, and this may be the reason that this issue confuses you. The following is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence, the 'foundation' of our nation;

Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
A Right is not "created" or "bestowed" by a government. they do not come from Congress or Senate. They are not conferred by any court.

You are endowed with basic human rights by the same "process" ( Call it whatever you will ) that started the beating of your heart, or enabled your first breath.

A Government cannot grant rights it can only use the law to attempt to put limits or constraints on them. [The original intent was to protect them]

A right is an absolute, that is only changed, or diminished, by your (collective) allowing it to be.

For instance, the 2nd amendment does not give you the right to keep or bear arms, it merely "affirms" that right already exists (you are alive, hence you have that right) and makes it understood that government cannot change that.

Unfortunately we know that government has changed it by "rules and regulations" And that is why we are ( or at least I am ) on this forum today. because we (collectively) do not believe they (should) have the authority to do so.

You see, the concept of "rights" has somehow been "reversed" by our educational system, and been taught 180 degrees from the way it actually exists. Sadly, (public) {Read; government funded} schools do not teach this properly any longer.

Quote:
and the government gets to set the limits and rules.
Question for you Joe, who is the government ? Hint: Read the red section.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; June 14, 2009 at 11:34 AM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 10:36 AM   #67
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
I know exactly what I'm saying, and I know I'm right. People are confused about rights, believe they come from some magical place in the sky. They don't: rights come from what groups of people get together and decide on. Rights aren't absolute, except where the government intervenes. Right don't exist except where the government intervenes.

All the Amendments created rights, or at least defined them into being for America. Rights don't come into being any other way. Of course, we're getting way off-topic, because to properly address the issue we'd have to go into all sorts of philosophical stuffs, theories of government, and possibly into stranger areas, like defining the word "exist."

I think I can sum it up this way: whatever your philosophical position on "rights" as an abstract concept, we live in a somewhat concrete world. In that world, and from a practical standpoint, governments create rights and the laws that govern those rights. It might not be the way you like it, but that's the way it works, and the way it has always worked. There's really no way of getting around it once you start packing bunches of people together.
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 11:00 AM   #68
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
Rights aren't absolute, except where the government intervenes. Right don't exist except where the government intervenes.

All the Amendments created rights, or at least defined them into being for America. Rights don't come into being any other way.
What you describe is the polar opposite of the Constitutional
Republic
Form of governance that the United States operates on.

Again I ask, who is the government ?

Let me give you another hint, do the words "We the People"
have any significance to you ?

To make it clearer, Government does not control The "people", it remains a "servant" of the people, and exists only by our own graces, despite how it describes it's self.

If you wish to continue to be a firearms owner, for whatever purposes you do so, you need to think carefully about what you have been "taught" versus reality.

ETA: Your time here on TFL may be a great learning experience for you, if you approach things with an open mind, or you may dismiss it as some sort of kooky, fringe extremism, but the threat to your ability to defend yourself, provide food for your family, or enjoy shooting at the range is very real. I merely point this out respectfully, as a fellow firearm enthusiast. and will broach the subject no further in this thread. Apologies for the veer, seemed germane to the topic.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; June 14, 2009 at 11:31 AM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 11:19 AM   #69
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
If it makes you feel better to say "people create rights" and substitute "people" where I said "government" then that's fine... my point is the same. We decide what rights are, through the tool of government. We as a country can also change our minds, but it doesn't matter unless people/government change the laws. This isn't what I was "taught"... that's what reality actually looks like.

I don't think we're going to agree(and by that I mean "you change your mind" ) so I suggest we sort of drop it, unless you want to discuss this privately? Otherwise, I've kind of said everything I need to on that score, and don't want to poke anyone with a sharp stick over it... and I REALLY don't want to get poked back!!
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 11:47 AM   #70
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,211
Deleted . Sorry double-tap
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; June 14, 2009 at 12:12 PM. Reason: weird, posted an old comment when I logged out.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 14, 2009, 11:21 PM   #71
Wagonman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 987
I am still lost----have all the citations I have issued for driving without a DL been unconstitutional?

Is this a state's rights federalism issue?
Wagonman is offline  
Old June 15, 2009, 09:38 AM   #72
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
I am still lost----have all the citations I have issued for driving without a DL been unconstitutional?

Is this a state's rights federalism issue?
Yes, and Yes, however it is a bit more complicated that that, perhaps this will help clarify (or cloud further) the issue;

The most common argument that drivers licenses violate a specific constitutional provision come from the "Priviliges and Immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment {"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"}.


However, in the "Slaughterhouse Cases", 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Court held that this only applies to the rights of national citizenship, (i.e. rights explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution) or, as Justice Stevens said in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), rights that are "firmly embedded in our jurisprudence", meaning rights that have long been established.
Another argument against drivers licenses come from another part of the 14th Amendment, the part which says {"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"}.

However, as long as there is a due process of State law to require drivers licenses, and as long as the laws apply equally to everyone, drivers licenses withstand this challenge, to a degree. On the first count, the fact that a state legislature has approved the law requiring a drivers license satisfies the due process requirement.

On the second count, there might be an argument to be made that we restrict licenses to people of a certain age (somewhere between 14-16 years old), and thus violate the equal protection clause. However, this type of challenge has been consistently rejected (such as laws regulating minimum drinking age), and represents a policy decision on behalf of state legislatures, rather than a constitutionally sound principle.

Where this all ties together is that firearms rights could, and in some instances are, being regulated in the same manner. That, and the fact that not many would be predisposed to take a citation for no DL to the SCOTUS.

However you slice it, the right to travel freely, by whatever means, is a right none the less, the only "privilege" that one gets is the chance to participate financially, in a self-fulfilling prophecy.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -

Last edited by OuTcAsT; June 15, 2009 at 09:56 AM.
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old June 16, 2009, 07:49 PM   #73
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,937
Quote:
Howabout this, offer firearms education in high school, like drivers ed, without making it mandatory...kinda like AZ already allows.
While I like this idea, I'd take it a step further and make it mandatory. I think something like your typical hunter safety course would be sufficient. Afterall, if the schools can teach things like the theory of evolution and sex-education that many parents find objectionable, why is safe gunhandling any different. Personally, I think the knowledge of how to safely handle a firearm is much more important than that of Darwinian theory.

Once everyone has had their safe-gunhandling class courtesy of their education, there will be no need to have a nationwide CCW class.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old June 16, 2009, 08:01 PM   #74
Mello2u
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 1,424
The government should not set any standards to issue a nationwide conceal carry permit if the person belongs to the class of citizens that are adult, are not convicted violent felons, and have not been adjudicated mentally incompetent.

Of course, should any person cause injury to someone in a negligent, reckless, wanton or intentional manner without justification, then they should be held legally responsible and pay the appropriate penalty whether civil or criminal.
__________________
NRA Life Member - Orange Gunsite Member - NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society,
they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it.
" Frederic Bastiat
Mello2u is offline  
Old June 16, 2009, 08:42 PM   #75
ImprobableJoe
Junior member
 
Join Date: June 11, 2009
Posts: 87
Quote:
While I like this idea, I'd take it a step further and make it mandatory. I think something like your typical hunter safety course would be sufficient. Afterall, if the schools can teach things like the theory of evolution and sex-education that many parents find objectionable, why is safe gunhandling any different. Personally, I think the knowledge of how to safely handle a firearm is much more important than that of Darwinian theory.

Once everyone has had their safe-gunhandling class courtesy of their education, there will be no need to have a nationwide CCW class.
Yeah, I mean... if the government dares teach reality-based biology and sex-ed, as crazy as it is to teach scientific facts, they had damned well better teach gun stuffs!

I'm all for firearm classes in schools, because it certainly fits in with my position of firearm licencing being roughly equivalent to drivers licences. Sounds fine to me... but do people here reject basic science that includes the fact of evolution? Really?
ImprobableJoe is offline  
Reply

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 05:03 PM.


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 0.14701 seconds with 7 queries