Posted on 04/23/2006 5:47:00 AM PDT by Crackingham
Lucy’s Love Shop employee Wanda Gillespie said she was flabbergasted that South Carolina’s Legislature is considering outlawing sex toys. But banning the sale of sex toys is actually quite common in some Southern states.
The South Carolina bill, proposed by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses.
"That would be the most terrible thing in the world," said Ms. Gillespie, an employee the Anderson shop. "That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we’re supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don’t want to do in the privacy of our own homes."
Ms. Gillespie, 49, said she has worked in the store for nearly 20 years and has seen people from every walk of life, including "every Sunday churchgoers."
"I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold because some people need that. The people who are riding us (the adult novelty industry) so hard are probably at home buying it (sex toys and novelties) on the Internet. It’s ridiculous." The measure would add sex toys to the state’s obscenity laws, which already prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials.
People convicted under obscenity laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
I got 86,000. Obviously a growing movement.
Leaving aside the question of whether a state does or should have the right to ban the sale of sex toys, why do it? Is there some threat to the commonweal involved? Is it a thinly-disguised attempt to enforce religious beliefs of some people on others? Or are some people not happy that others might be enjoying themselves, so to speak?
Anyway, this law would be blatantly discriminatory against seasoned citizens who have severe arthritis, secretaries with carpal tunnel syndrome, and amputees. If this bill becomes Law, the SCOTUS case would be hugh and series -- and brutally entertaining.
Are you saying that, despite federal action in this area, states should still be allowed to regulate marijuana as they please?
I didn't say that at all -- I simply asked you a question. I can't get past your logical inconsistencies. When you agree with a federal law (War on Drugs), you invoke the Supremacy Clause, i.e. that the Constitution and federal statutes are the Supreme Law of the Land, and states are bound to uphold the federal law as supreme. But in the case of RKBA, you take a clearly enumerated Constitutional right, and subjugate it to the control of each state legislature without regard to the Supremacy Clause.
Cross the stateline from GA to SC and you see the big FIREWORKS signs.
I can see it now....coming intoGA will be a 'SEX TOYS Next Exit' sign, LOL!
Yes, we have no bananas, We have no bananas today!
Where have you guys been? We went through this in Georgia years ago. FIJA got escorted off courthouse grounds during the trial of the store owners. Yep same law, nothing that resembles human genitalia can be sold to stimulate human genitalia. No kidding. What makes people think we live in a "free" country? Democracies aren't free they're mob rule.
The laws used to exist all over. Some were repealed, most others are ignored. Trying to pass a new one in the 21st century is ... novel.
Texas mom faces trial for selling sex toys
Similar laws mentioned in this article: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
Some of the Christian demonetization's are truly the American Taliban
It was the original intent of the Founders to have the Bill of Rights restrain solely the newly formed federal government.
2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Case in point. In the deliberations of the constitution, Madison proposed: "Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It was rejected. The Founders did not want such constitutional limitations placed on the states.
It was rejected. The Founders had already written/ratified Article VI Sec 2. There was no need for further specificity.
Yes, the Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution. But an amendment like the 14th (which supposedly applied the BOR to the states) was totally contrary to the original intent of the Founders!
The 14th was necessary to clarify the issue. Southern States were violating 2nd Amendment rights using the erroneous 'Barron' decision.
For you to sit there say that because it was an amendment it therefore complied with original intent is, excuse me, absurd.
Paulsen, your's is the absurd argument, based solely on a redundant Madison proposal. Give it a rest. The Constitution is quite clear in defending individual rights.
The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on the federal government only.
The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on fed/state/local governments. Clearly, this "right of the people" -- "shall not be infringed".
Whether the second amendment protects an individual right or a collective right is moot when it comes to state law, since every court in the land has ruled that the second amendment does not apply to state laws. Period.
Simply not true. Nunn_v_Georgia proves otherwise:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt
Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution.
Not true in Calif, Ill, & NY, - just for starters.
That's just the way it is, and coincidentally, that is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it. They trusted their state over everything else. They identified themselves by their state, as a Virginian or a Georgian, and took pride in the things that made their state different. To think they would press for some kind of constitutional federal uniformity is ludicrous.
Dream on paulsen, -- wrap yourself in an imaginary patriotism, 'protected' by States that are just as politically corrupted as the federal government.
Ok, I dont get it.
What harm do sex toys cause ? how do they disturb the peace ?
And I'm more comfortable with people who correctly interpret what I say. I restated it to clarify what I said, not change what I said.
"Oh, now I see. You merely assert that your opponent said something through a misleading accusation, and then debate the false point."
What are you whining about now? Your question was, "Are you really contending that a ban would be within their rights even if no ill effect can be shown to actually exist?". You didn't say there was no ill effect. You postulated "IF there is no ill effect". So I responded that "... if ...there is no ill effect, the citizens may question the legislature as to the purpose of this law and make their voices known."
Tell me again about these straw men.
Yes, and South Carolina wishes to make the sale of sex toys illegal. The proposed law IS analogous to the other existing laws.
"It's uses and functions occur in the home, in private, in what should be well beyond the prying eyes of others, the omnipotent state included."
So you think the law prohibits the use of sex toys in the home? Why are you making this the issue?
The law prohibits the SALE of sex toys. It's right in the title of the article. You don't even have to read the whole article. It's right there for everyone to see. Did you see it?
Then why are you whining about "private use" and "prying eyes" and "in the home"? None of that is affected!
The citizens of South Carolina are free to go out of state to purchase these products or order them online. Who cares? They just don't want them sold in stores.
Is that the new threshhold for laws -- they must address some threat? You set a pretty high bar there.
"Is it a thinly-disguised attempt to enforce religious beliefs of some people on others?"
Ah. You think people may be imposing their morality on others. Well, in a sense they are.
The citizens of South Carolina, through this law, are setting a standard for decency in their state. They believe the sex toys to be obscene, and want their sale banned. I say they have that right.
"Anyway, this law would be blatantly discriminatory against seasoned citizens who have severe arthritis, secretaries with carpal tunnel syndrome, and amputees."
These groups are certainly entitled to challenge the law. But since the law bans the sale, not possession and use, I don't think they'll have much of a case.
I said, "As with any law, absent Congressional action, the state has the power to regulate the commerce in their state." When the federal government passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, each state was bound by that law under the Supremacy Clause.
You'll have to be more specific when you talk about my inconsistencies -- I don't know what you're talking about.
The U.S. Constitution does not enumerate rights. The U.S. Constitution states which rights will be protected from federal infringement (The 14th amendment "incorporated" some of the Bill of Rights and extended their protection to the state level -- the 2nd amendment was not one of them). Some of the rights are very specific, some are vague (the right to "liberty", for example). If there is a question about whether some right is indeed protected (the right to dance nude, for example), the U.S. Supreme Court decides the issue.
Every court in the land, every one, has stated that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only applies to the federal government. In other words, it protects the RKBA from federal infringement.
Furthermore, every federal court in every court decision (save one court in one decision) has stated that the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution only protects a collective RKBA (ie., as part of a state militia). In other words, the federal government may not infringe the states' ability to arm the citizens and form a state militia. That's all the second amendment does.
Your individual RKBA is defined and protected by your state.
Ah. You think people may be imposing their morality on others. Well, in a sense they are. The citizens of South Carolina, through this law, are setting a standard for decency in their state. They believe the sex toys to be obscene, and want their sale banned.
I say they have that right.
You say they have a 'moral' right to ban toys, -- and guns.
Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution.
Not true in Calif, Ill, & NY, - just for starters.
That's just the way it is, and coincidentally, that is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it. They trusted their state over everything else.
Dream on paulsen, -- wrap yourself in an imaginary patriotism, 'protected' by States that are just as politically corrupted as the federal government.
>>>>>>> Crickets from post #372 <<<<<<<
Sure it is. I said your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. If there is nothing in your state constitution about arms, then your RKBA is neither defined nor protected.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.