Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]

SHOTGUN NEWS ^ | 1/11/03 | Amicus Populi

[lawdog]

California can't do it. Please refer to Natural law , the Declaration of Independence and inalienable rights. The Constitution doesn't grant "rights".

Can California force it's citizens to quarter troops in their homes ? After all the California Constitution doesn't address that "right' either. By the way the California Constitution does recognize the right to own private property and the "right of self defense". Gee,it even says:

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

JUST WHAT CAN ONE PROTECT HIS LIFE, LIBERTY PROPERTY AND SAFETY WITH ? No, it's not a cell phone !

[Texaggie79]

Moving only works if there are standards. If it were anarchy, and all drugs were legal, no matter where I moved, it would, most likely be near threat. Now, if there are states with say.... DRUG LAWS, I could move there.... HEY!!! I'm already there!!!!

[tpaine]

Yep, this post by Paulsen is probably the most candid on the thread. Follow his replies and he admits that a state can ban the RKBA's, and that he doesn't care because 'its the law'. Incredible:

From tpaine:
"States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns."


Can you point out where in the California State Constitution an individual has the right to keep and bear arms?
I'll save you the time. It's nowhere to be found.
California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th. California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, including Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York.
California can ban all guns. Right now, they choose not to.
85 -RP-

[tpaine]

Good grief, are you still whining about 'feeling threatened'?

Grow up aggie! Get a grip & tame your irrational fears.

[Roscoe]

As I told you before, I would buy no land without ALL rights, including water, mineral, timber and so forth.

A renter.

[robertpaulsen]

tpaine, what is your problem? Where do I say I don't care? Where did I say that "a state" can ban RKBA? Many states have allowed it under their constitution. Just trying to stir up trouble?

lawdog is correct in pointing out that Section 1 of the California constitution can be used as an argument to own a gun -- but you have to admit that it's pretty flimsy compared to other state constitutions which spell it out.

If you want to bury your head in the ground and pretend that gun rights are not in jeopardy in California, be my guest. You can't begin to fix the problem until you've identified it. Maybe you're the one who doesn't want the gun owners in California to find out the truth.

[robertpaulsen]

"The Constitution doesn't grant "rights"."

No, it doesn't. But keep in mind that the Constitution puts limits on the Federal government, not the state governments. State governments were allowed to do what they wished.

For example, Massachusetts had a state funded established religion (Congregationalism) until 1825, 36 years after the Bill of Rights was passed. So be careful when applying the Constitution to a state.

The 14th amendment (ratified after the Civil War in 1868) applied much of the Federal Constitution to the states. I said "much", not all. The 2nd, 5th, and 7th amendments remain unincorporated.

To answer your question, no, California cannot force it's citizens to quarter troops in their homes since that is against the 3rd amendment which is incorporated.

[tpaine]

Yep, this post by Paulsen is probably the most candid on the thread. Follow his replies and he admits that a state can ban the RKBA's, and that he doesn't care because 'its the law'. Incredible:

From tpaine: "States can no more prohibit drugs, -- than they can guns."

Can you point out where in the California State Constitution an individual has the right to keep and bear arms? I'll save you the time. It's nowhere to be found. California did not "bring over" the 2nd amendment as part of the 14th. California is one of only five states whose constitutions are silent on the issue of gun rights, including Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York. California can ban all guns. Right now, they choose not to. 85 -RP-

tpaine, what is your problem?

You, and those like you, are our constitutional problem, imo.

Where do I say I don't care?

"State governments were allowed to do what they wished", is a recent quote that shows a lack of concern. Many others abound in your postings.

Where did I say that "a state" can ban RKBA?

Just above, - "California can ban all guns" - Your attempted word games are a silly dodge, btw.

Many states have allowed it under their constitution. Just trying to stir up trouble?

You bet. You 'states rights' advocates are trying to subvert human rights, imo.

lawdog is correct in pointing out that Section 1 of the California constitution can be used as an argument to own a gun -- but you have to admit that it's pretty flimsy compared to other state constitutions which spell it out. If you want to bury your head in the ground and pretend that gun rights are not in jeopardy in California, be my guest.

Dishonest 'pretending' on your part. You know better.

You can't begin to fix the problem until you've identified it. Maybe you're the one who doesn't want the gun owners in California to find out the truth.

Again - you attempt to smear me in your desperation. It is totally clear that you 'states rights' advocates at FR will sell out our constitution in order to further your single issue agendas, -- which are fantasies of a 'controled' society.

[dcwusmc]

Which has WHAT connection to the discussion?

[dcwusmc]

I am still waiting for cites showing that government owns all the land in this country. {yawn... Damn it's been a long wait!}

[dcwusmc]

Hey, TPAINE, wanna take a swing at this question? As if I didn't know your answer already!

[Roscoe]

Your understanding of the nature of property is small.

[dcwusmc]

Presume for the sake of discussion that your comment is true. Making it contributes WHAT to the topic of the thread?

[Roscoe]

As I told you before, I would buy no land without ALL rights, including water, mineral, timber and so forth.

Empty noise?

[dcwusmc]

Yes, you do contribute a whole LOT of empty noise to most threads you frequent. I'm glad you finally see that. Now maybe you can actually post some logical, rational and FACT-based comments in the future.

Here's a question for you: WHO should be the one or ones to define our rights? And why?

[Texaggie79]

I'm sorry that it's that far over your head. Ownership is quite a complex issue when it comes to real estate.

The simplest way I can describe it for you is to look at as the government being the initial owner. Such as with the Louisiana purchase. From there, they SELL rights to that land or give them to people. They still, however, retain rights to that land that were never sold or given away.

Therefore, when your local government votes on local laws, those very laws are directly effecting the land you own rights to. It is subject to them, and any violation of them is punishable by government.

[Texaggie79]

I would buy no land without ALL rights

Well, then you CERTAINLY won't buy land in this country, or any country I can think of. I hope you can find a deserted, uncharted island somewhere...

[lawdog]

Sorry. I don't subscribe to the "States Rights" opinion of the Second. Fortunately, more courts today are beginning to recognize the "Standard Model", that is the Second is declaring an individual "right".

The dirty little secret is that many Californians are " ignoring " the gun bans spewed forth from Sacramento.

[tpaine]

Therefore, when your local government votes on local laws, those very laws are directly effecting the land you own rights to.
It is subject to them, and any violation of them is punishable by government.
-ta79-

Lord but you are dense.

The issue is, that "when your local government votes on local laws" these laws must conform to the base principles of our constitution.
- You deny this simple fact.

[Roscoe]

WHO should be the one or ones to define our rights?

WHO? Your very question demonstrates the poverty of your "philosophy."

History, custom, law and our representative systems of government, among other things, all play important roles in establishing, defining and protecting our rights.