"Take it easy, lady! It's delivered in a plain brown wrapper, see?"
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 have found, through much wasted time reading his inane ramblings, that Paulsen invariably takes a side contrary to the facts and does it in such an annoying fashion that he is not worth the trouble. He is consistently opposed to the system of governance set up by our Founders.
Reb, - his 'annoying fashion' is a deliberate part of his agitprop. -- He imagines it agitates just enough to serve to spread his anti-constitutional propoganda.
Let him delude himself, seeing that he serves a very useful purpose here at FR. He actually serves as a foil, - a sort of court jester.
His "inane ramblings", -- "contrary to the facts", enable us to present the Constitutional facts of life.
I would think that anything deemed "obscene" would be something that is displayed in public. I wonder why some states want to regulate what is private? I can certainly understand the public advertising and display or use of such a device, but until they start putting cameras in peoples' private bedrooms, this is a sick joke of a law.
Don't have time to read the whole thread to see if it has already been posted but above is link to Comrade Davenport's proposed modification of state law.
There is something comical in the neo-confederate notions that the post-Civil-War amendments were not "intended" to place constraints on the previous scope of "state's rights".
The Second Amendment as I understand it applies to individuals, not states. It is an express Constitutional right granted to individuals, and IMHO the states are bound by it as a fundamental right granted to individuals. But as for regulation of our individual rights, and restrictions that various states have placed on those rights -- this is where I believe we have ceded huge amounts of territory from the original intent of the Founders, so much so that what we currently have in place bears little resemblance to what they had in mind.
But pragmatically, it is what it is, so we do the best we can with where we find ourselves today. The Supreme Court decisions of the past have led to the battleground for such rights being fought on a state-by-state basis, and slowly but surely, the battles in the courts have turned increasingly in favor of RKBA liberties (in most states). So even though I don't consider this the ideal, it is where we find ourselves today.
Individual rights are Constitutionally protected, and RKBA falls under that. Any law that the states pass must be Constitutional. I agree with federalist ideas in general, within the bounds of the Constitution protecting individual liberties first and foremost.
paulsen trolls:
Then why is concealed carry a state issue?
It shouldn't be. "Shall not be infringed" is a definite restriction on the State & local power to reasonably regulate arms.
If RKBA is protected by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, how can different states have different laws? Isn't there something about constitutional due process that requires uniformity?
You've answered your own question, bobbie. 'Equal protection' should enable us to carry in any State in the Union.
How can one state require registration, and others don't? Why are age limits different in each state? Why are some guns prohibited in one state but legal in another?
Because the US Constitution is being ignored when it comes to our RKBA's. -- Thats "why"..
Are you sure that the second amendment applies to the states?
Yes.
Or is each state guided solely by its State Constitution?
Incredible that you ask that question bobbie. Article VI and the 10th/14th Amendments are clear that States are 'guided' by both US & State Constitutions. Read much?
Wow! Does this apply to all laws or just to laws you don't like?
The Country is falling to pieces all around us and these Turkeys are fooling around with this. Amazing.
(Not to condemn S.C., Our Texas Legislators are just as bad, if not worse).
Whats really bad is they're all Republican!
What a convenient reading of the X Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
No it isn't. The Constitution does not "grant" rights. Only liberals and statists would think otherwise. The Constitution is there to limit government and protect rights, both delineated and undeliniated.
ping
I have no idea what that means.
First off, how have we ceded huge amounts of territory from the original intent of the Founders? Are you talking about all the Supreme Court rulings that said that the second amendment only applies to the federal government?
Secondly, if you're citing original intent of the Founders, then that certainly leaves out the 14th amendment (which occurred 100 years later), the amendment which supposedly applied the second amendment to the states.
Agreed. Sloppy word usage on my part.
Live and let live. There is no need for this intrusive law.
But of course.
So you agree that the people have the power to prohibit the sale of sex toys in their state, since this power was not ceded to the federal government. Correct?
No, I don't. I default to "maximum freedom with minimum interference." The sale of sex toys affects no one and the only reason for outlawing them is that the concept of such offends someone's sensibilities and he or she just can't stand the idea that someone else may be enjoying themselves with these devices.
Individual rights are Constitutionally protected, and RKBA falls under that. Any law that the states pass must be Constitutional. I agree with federalist ideas in general, within the bounds of the Constitution protecting individual liberties first and foremost.
paulsen trolls:
Then why is concealed carry a state issue?
It shouldn't be. "Shall not be infringed" is a definite restriction on the State & local power to reasonably regulate arms.
If RKBA is protected by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, how can different states have different laws? Isn't there something about constitutional due process that requires uniformity?
You've answered your own question, bobbie. 'Equal protection' should enable us to carry in any State in the Union.
How can one state require registration, and others don't? Why are age limits different in each state? Why are some guns prohibited in one state but legal in another?
Because the US Constitution is being ignored when it comes to our RKBA's. -- Thats "why"..
Are you sure that the second amendment applies to the states?
Yes.
Or is each state guided solely by its State Constitution?
Incredible that you ask that question bobbie. Article VI and the 10th/14th Amendments are clear that States are 'guided' by both US & State Constitutions. Read much?
So you're saying that the second amendment protects the RKBA of individuals from both federal and state infringement
That's what the Constitution says paulsen.
--- have we ceded huge amounts of territory from the original intent of the Founders? Are you talking about all the Supreme Court rulings that said that the second amendment only applies to the federal government?
'Jim Crow' type 'rulings' you mean? "Rulings" intended to negate the 14th Amendments clear restrictions on State infringements of ex-slaves individual rights? Prohibitionists are now cynically using these same erroneous rulings in order to justify infringements on everyones rights to life, liberty, or property.
Secondly, if you're citing original intent of the Founders, then that certainly leaves out the 14th amendment (which occurred 100 years later), the amendment which supposedly applied the second amendment to the states.
The 2nd has always applied to States, as Article VI proves.
The 14th was ratified to make clear that the unconstitutional States 'rights' position was ended by the civil war.
Unfortunately, prohibitionists have taken up that rebel cause. -- Why is that paulsen?
Why do you people feel need to fight against our liberties?
It means that I believe the Constitution provided for a much more libertarian republic as the default, meant to limit government to the bare minimum necessary to protect and defend our liberties -- but that we find ourselves today in an entirely too statist and socialist state of being, that has crept in incrementally over many years.
The Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution, making them deliberately difficult to pass (so that people wouldn't tinker with the fundamentals every time they wanted to win a political battle). I believe you are being disingenuous by suggesting that any Amendment that was not part of the Bill of Rights somehow goes against the intent of the Founders, when they purposely made provisions for these Amendments as legitimate additions to the Constitution.
"Take it easy, lady! It's delivered in a plain brown wrapper, see?"
"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.
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!
For you to sit there say that because it was an amendment it therefore complied with original intent is, excuse me, absurd.
The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on the federal government only. 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.
Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. 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.
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.