Posted on 07/11/2008 3:00:00 PM PDT by marktwain
HUH? What does "free and unimpeded travel" have to do with this issue? This blog came from a Jack Daniels's bottle, I think.
There is NO "right" to free and unimpeded travel in the Constitution or its Amendments that I can find. You are talking about two different meanings of the word "right" when you mention a right-of-way. You are mixing your nouns with your adjectives here. Again though, traveling on a right-of-way is a privilege, not a right guaranteed by our Constitution!
Registration requirements = Infringement.
Carry Permit requirements = Infringement.
FOID card = Infringement.
FFL requirement = Infringement.
BATF existence = Infringement.
“undue burden” = Infringement (any burden is undue).
Heller = just the first step down a long road back to Freedom.
“guilty of carrying a loaded firearm” = Infringement.
carrying a loaded firearm = pre-existing right explicitly enumrated in (not granted by) COTUS.
I’m OK with that.
Not an enumerated right.
smoke dope
Not an enumerated right.
take anything we want
Not an enumerated right; indeed, Castle Doctrine means those of us who exercise RKBA may shoot anyone engaging therein.
some things have evolved that prove to work
The Endlösung zur jüdischen Frage evolved, and would have worked if it hadn't been interrupted. Doesn't make it a good thing.
I intend to try and take care of my own...am willing to die trying.
If you die trying, you're doing it wrong.
invents all these rights
We didn't invent 'em. We were born with them. It is others who are trying to take them away. We object.
When does the rights of many over the rights of a few suppose to come into play.
It doesn't...at least in this country.
I have been where you are and you have tunnel vision. The day will come,believe you me. That is if you live long enough.
1. Trying to figure out if that's a threat-- FAIL
2. Subroutine: if it is a threat, is the person making it more or less likely to be carrying what I'm carrying -- LESS
3. Trying to determine whether, if it's a threat, whether I should care or not -- NOT
4. Conclusion: At 44, having faced death for my country from a foreign enemy at 26, I sense that there may be a domestic enemy at my heels; but since that individual is likely to be armed with only with words and little wit, I choose to ignore its petulant whinging and get on with life.
Farewell.
I agree, yet the law IS on the books. And it IS an infringement. Yet, I will bet that when this goes before either a State appeals court or the 9th circus, it will be upheld as reasonable regulation. I can only suspect that when the SC ruled in Heller that it deliberately left out any mention of the right to carry. The hope I have is that the right to carry will be grandfathered under “unreasonable burden.”
Some cringing thing on this thread has whinged about enumerated rights and the Preamble to COTUS. The preamble does not contradict the Second Amendment.
The phrase “shall not be infringed” has a very definite meaning.
How does an ID check establish that no crime had been committed? I’m very unclear about that.
If the police saw someone truly brandishing (waving around) a firearm, or if someone filed a non-anonymous complaint about same, then fine, arrest the guy. But playing “Vere are your PAPERS!?” games with people exercising an enumerated right based on someone freaking out over a holstered pistol shouldn’t be acceptable.
Exactly so, and see my previous.
Whatever you say hoss.
I’m always interested in the musings and opinions of random gasbags, that’s why I pay so much heed to the flatulent felons in Washington.
I can see no cause to deny you the same degree of respect I would any other ruminating rectum.
So carry on j.f.kerry ...er... j.r.freeper, carry on.
I can understand your position.
I also think we’re long past the point where talking with LEOs is going to fix the problems. It will take legal cases and judgments against jurisdictions, officers, prosecutors, etc. It will take at least 30 years of pushing back to get us to a reasonable place where talking to LEOs might solve a problem in this area.
“This will not end well. A retention holster was not used. Meaning a felon could snatch said firearm and use it in a family restaurant.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2044398/posts
While it's not explicitly enumerated, it would be one of the common-law rights covered by the Ninth Amendment. Certainly far less of a stretch than all the other stuff it seems to cover.
Although the Dredd Scott decision has been overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment which declared that Blacks were citizens, that does not undo its fundamental logic; indeed, it turns the logic around.
Basically, the Dredd Scott decision said that if Blacks were citizens, they could do all sorts of things including going where they pleased, and bearing arms while doing so. Since it would be bad it Blacks could do those things, ergo they cannot be citizens.
I would suggest that while the Fourteenth Amendment overruled Dredd Scott by stating that Blacks were citizens, the implication is not that citizenship no longer implies the right to freely travel, armed, but rather that blacks now have the right of free travel.
It would be possible to draft a few rules related to firearms and ammunition which would pass Constitutional muster. I would see nothing wrong with having an agency to enforce those few rules.
The biggest problems with the BATF are (1) there are a lot of rules that are grossly unconstitutional, but which the BATF enforces anyway, and (2) it is bad to combine the functions of peace officers and rev'nooers; the BATF exhibits the tendencies for abuse that occur when those functions are combined.
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.