PistolPackingMomma
Regular Member
Contrary to some views, there is a difference between rights and privileges.
You do have that "right" to travel by car. You just need to be licensed and take a training class to do so and meet age requirements. Very similar to how certain states treat carrying firearms. If 2a can be regulated with licenses then so can travel.
I hereby offer you the right to apply to me for a permit to take your "rebuttal" and git.
If I have to apply for it then its a privilege not a right lol
You do have that "right" to travel by car. You just need to be licensed and take a training class to do so and meet age requirements. Very similar to how certain states treat carrying firearms. If 2a can be regulated with licenses then so can travel.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
A training class? As far as 2nd amendment goes, Heller II struck down the requirement for a person to take a training class as a prerequisite for obtaining a gun.
As far as driving goes...if you are driving (ie commercial movement) then you need a license. As far as traveling goes (ie non-commercial) I see the requirement to be licensed as violating our right to travel that affects our right to assemble. More people will turn to this view once DLs have RFID tags put into them.
So, neither can require a "training lesson" and those that attempt to impose such requirements do not pay for the lessons...another issue I'll just state here w/o further discussion.
You still need to attend a training class to purchase a handgun and carry a handgun in MA.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
If I have to apply for it then its a privilege not a right lol
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
You still need to attend a training class to purchase a handgun and carry a handgun in MA.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Hi All
Point being, why would a citizen in his /her proper frame of mind ever consider sacrificing a natural right for a mere privilege of entering into a contract with the State? A contract that could possibly in certain situations enforce that a citizen surrender their Constitutional Rights..
A contract that cost money each year..
" It is 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 apucnture with the corporation with the corporate state. " NO LICENSE IS REQUIRED OF THE NATURAL INDIVIDUAL TRAVELING FOR PERSONAL BUSINESS, PLEASURE AND TRANSPORTATION"
( Wingfield v Fielder ( 1972) 29, CA. 3d 213...
Many folks are ignorant of their rights therefore the state collects free money.. Members of the bar will not challenge statutes or ordinances that assist them in paying their rent... And LEOS are simply body guards that do what they are told, they enforce codes, statutes, ordinances etc. because someone told them to do so... The kangaroo traffic courts with their sitting judge and prosecutor do not administer justice, they accept pleads to lesser charges and collect finds and fees... No Justice... No justice because folks have no clue about their rights. Also the state likes citizens to feel that having a driver license is a privilege... Is walking your dog down the street a privilege? I dare say NOT...
The following will be my very last post of case law regarding this subject.
" Those things which are considered as " Inalienable Rights" which all citizens possess cannot be Licensed since those acts are not held to a privilege"
-- City of Chicago v Collins, 51 N.E. 907,910...
I rest my case...
Thank you and best regards.
CCJ
And you agree with that infringement?
And the day I saw a guy try to jam a magazine in his Ar in backwards at my local range was the day I realized training is needed. I actually stopped what in was doing and gave him a quick lesson. He had just purchased the rifle a day before and had never handled one before. Ever.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Yes sir I do. I'd even go so far as saying the classes should be longer and include a qualification to shoot. But that's just personal opinion.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
And the day I saw a guy try to jam a magazine in his Ar in backwards at my local range was the day I realized training is needed. I actually stopped what in was doing and gave him a quick lesson. He had just purchased the rifle a day before and had never handled one before. Ever.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
I have read nothing in this thread other than this post. (I generally avoid threads started by the OP. They tend to be moronic.) But, when I saw the snippet of this post in the "Unread" section of Tap-a-Talk, I had to respond.)
YES!!!!! Everyone should train with all dangerous tools that they will be using. That does not mean that the government should mandate that training--especially if the contract we have with that government requires that they do not infringe on our possession or carriage of that tool!!!
Requiring training is an infringement.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
I have read nothing in this thread other than this post. (I generally avoid threads started by the OP. They tend to be moronic.) But, when I saw the snippet of this post in the "Unread" section of Tap-a-Talk, I had to respond.)
YES!!!!! Everyone should train with all dangerous tools that they will be using. That does not mean that the government should mandate that training--especially if the contract we have with that government requires that they do not infringe on our possession or carriage of that tool!!!
Requiring training is an infringement.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Unfortunately someone needs to tell people to train with said dangerous weapon. I wish everyone was just responsible enough to do it on their own.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
I guess you missed the part about personal opinion? Figured you would.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk