Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: What would it take to get this before SCOTUS?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293

    What would it take to get this before SCOTUS?

    Okay, as we all know, the first amendment, seemingly is not subject to licensure or permission slip, aka a permit. (though the free speech zone, shows how silly the feds can get)

    And further down the line, the third, fourth, fifth (which is nearly dead)

    Why is it that the second amendment is the only amendment subject to licensure/permit?

    I heard quite often, we need to first repeal GCA, NFA, etc, etc.

    I disagree.

    I believe this is the heart of the matter that must be attacked and slayed with haste.

    You see we are past the time where few alive, if any, remember living freely at a time before NFA, GCA and other gun control laws. And we are on the cusp of the concealed carry permit, concealed weapons permit, firearms permit, firearms id card, etc, etc. THE RIGHT is slowly fading and the LICENSE is rising.

    In a generation, will the majority of Americans honestly remember what it will be like to NOT apply for some sort of permit that stabs at their natural born rights?

    The permit must go, but how does one repeal this and, sadly get it before the Rights Hangin' Judges of this land?

    Molon Labe, while often used as a phrase of bravado, if you are honest to yourself, it tends to be a joke, if you ask me, as many Americans, had to get permission to obtain and keep their weapon, from a bureaucrat or elected politician and another permission slip to bear it, and its subject to be lost under a laundry list of rules (Lautenburg amendment, and no I don't recall a 28th amendment passed as of recent, DO YOU?)

    Your take?
    Last edited by Custodian; 03-09-2015 at 09:43 PM.
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  2. #2
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,622
    Not sure what issue you wish to see before SCOTUS - collectively all gun restrictions/laws?

    My take?

    I remember when a 12yo could buy a gun and ammo at the local emporium or through a catalog. Then the pendulum swung the other way.

    Still in most recent years we have made great advances in regaining the RKBA - dramatically so where states embraced Constitutional Carry.

    We are on a roll - let nothing deter us - not rain, sleet, or snow jobs.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by Custodian View Post
    Why is it that the second amendment is the only amendment subject to licensure/permit?
    Not to split hairs, but we have a Constitutional right to travel, yet vehicle license, drivers license...
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  4. #4
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Not to split hairs, but we have a Constitutional right to travel, yet vehicle license, drivers license...
    Nobody's infringing on your right to travel by making you get licensed and registered. You can always use public transportation or walk or ride a bike or a horse. There's an over-riding public good achieved by making sure drivers actually know how to point their vehicle in a safe and lawful manner, and that for the financial protection of themself and the public at large they carry a certain minimum of liability insurance.

    Those are the main points I'm always told whenever the dichotomy between the right to travel and the government licensing/registering of the most common means of travel becomes the subject of conversation.

    Now where else have I heard those explanations? They sound so familiar.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  5. #5
    Regular Member Custodian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The Capital City of Oaks - Raleigh, NC
    Posts
    293

    this is my question

    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Not sure what issue you wish to see before SCOTUS - collectively all gun restrictions/laws?

    My take?

    I remember when a 12yo could buy a gun and ammo at the local emporium or through a catalog. Then the pendulum swung the other way.

    Still in most recent years we have made great advances in regaining the RKBA - dramatically so where states embraced Constitutional Carry.

    We are on a roll - let nothing deter us - not rain, sleet, or snow jobs.
    My question to SCOTUS

    How Is It Constitutional To License A Right Guaranteed By the Bill Of Rights?

    How do the stages have this authority?

    No other right is subject to licensure, except the second. If you ask me, though I am probably wrong, I'd say automobiles and other vehicles are covered by the ninth or tenth amendment.
    Subsisto tutus. Subsisto secundus emendatio.

    Tyrants come in all shapes and sizes, as do those who do their bidding. Anyone who tells you that the threat of tyranny is long over, is either a fool, an enemy, or BOTH.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Yeah, you are. You have no right to hazard another's health.

    ETA much later: "Driver gets year in jail for killing bicyclist... Prosecutors say Grulke should have known he wasn't safe to drive ..." http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/d...295731861.html
    Last edited by Nightmare; 03-10-2015 at 11:05 AM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Custodian View Post
    My question to SCOTUS

    How Is It Constitutional To License A Right Guaranteed By the Bill Of Rights?

    How do the stages have this authority?

    No other right is subject to licensure, except the second. If you ask me, though I am probably wrong, I'd say automobiles and other vehicles are covered by the ninth or tenth amendment.
    Automobiles etc. are covered by the tax code. Registration and the requirement for insurance coverage is covered partly by the tax code but IMHO mostly by Common Law limitations of liability against the state and imposition of responsibility on owners/operators of things that could hurt someone else. Licensure of drivers is covered by the Common Law duty of the state to ensure the safety of the citizens, but again the power to tax comes into play.

    IIRC in those states that do not have "Constitutional Carry" it is a crime to carry a handgun outside the home and curtilege - sometimes only a crime to carry it concealed and sometimes a crime to carry it in any manner. The license is defined as the affirmative defense against the crime.

    We need to keep in mind that at this moment the right to keep and bear arms has been narrowly defined as an individual right to keep and carry them in the home for home defense. As much as that irritates the "Shall not be infringed!!!!!!ELEVENTY 1111!!" crowd, that is the current state of affairs. Every discussion of "how can they __" must begin there and then may move on to what and how things "should be" and possibly even how to get from where we are to there.

    One of the arguments that is deafening by its absence is the clearly established lack of any duty by the police to protect any specific individual not in their immediate custody and care, contrasted by the clearly established right to self defense including by the use of deadly force. Will the courts actually go so far as to specify what means of deadly force we are limited to? (Are you interested in some oceanfront property in Death Valley?)

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member Have Gun - Will Carry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Kenosha County, Wisconsin
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    IIRC in those states that do not have "Constitutional Carry" it is a crime to carry a handgun outside the home and curtilege - sometimes only a crime to carry it concealed and sometimes a crime to carry it in any manner. The license is defined as the affirmative defense against the crime.

    We need to keep in mind that at this moment the right to keep and bear arms has been narrowly defined as an individual right to keep and carry them in the home for home defense.
    That's true for some states, but not all or even most of them (sorry, I don't know offhand which ones.) For example, Wisconsin has never had any kind of law restricting (or even mentioning) open carry, so it's been ostensibly legal for our entire history as a state.

    With 10+ years of concerted effort by activists pushing the OC envelope, a constitutional amendment stating that "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose", plus a written opinion by the Attorney General clarifying that open carry by itself cannot be construed as a crime, the right to bear arms - in public - is well-established here.
    “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other.” - John Adams

    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Experience? Experience means political success, which means (today) Democrat or Republican. And it is precisely these professional politicians who have become corrupt and unrepresentative of the American people.

  9. #9
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    Not to split hairs, but we have a Constitutional right to travel, yet vehicle license, drivers license...
    There is no license required to travel, only to drive. But it is a valid argument that DL infringe on the right to travel. To have the same level as firearms control one would have to pass a background check to buy a motor vehicle. To put free speech on the same level tongues would have to be licensed, or mouths sewn closed. Most punishments for acts that abuse rights come AFTER the crime, not guesswork before a crime that you might commit a crime.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  10. #10
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Custodian View Post
    My question to SCOTUS

    How Is It Constitutional To License A Right Guaranteed By the Bill Of Rights?

    How do the stages have this authority?

    No other right is subject to licensure, except the second. If you ask me, though I am probably wrong, I'd say automobiles and other vehicles are covered by the ninth or tenth amendment.
    SCOTUS has no authority to interpret the Constitution. If you think they do please cite where it is written. You won't find it. SCOTUS just does it with no authority.

    As far as people who don't get the right to travel. Did they require a license to ride a horse or horse and buggy? No.

    It is all a money making scheme. All in the name of safety. The excuse that is always given to take away our rights.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  11. #11
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,279
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    SCOTUS has no authority to interpret the Constitution. If you think they do please cite where it is written. You won't find it. SCOTUS just does it with no authority.

    As far as people who don't get the right to travel. Did they require a license to ride a horse or horse and buggy? No.

    It is all a money making scheme. All in the name of safety. The excuse that is always given to take away our rights.
    Not just a money making scheme, but also a people registry scheme.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by SovereigntyOrDeath View Post
    [ ... ] As far as people who don't get the right to travel. Did they require a license to ride a horse or horse and buggy? No. [ ... ]
    Horses will avoid a collision, same as a pedestrian and HPV cyclist, the properly unlicensed users of the road. Motor vehicles are auto mobile.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    Horses will avoid a collision, same as a pedestrian and HPV cyclist, the properly unlicensed users of the road. Motor vehicles are auto mobile.
    Bullhockey. A car is a conveyance for travel same as a horse, mule, bicycle, motor bike, etc, etc, etc....

    People who rationalize otherwise are culpable in the erosion of rights, like needing a permit to carry.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 03-10-2015 at 10:09 PM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Not just a money making scheme, but also a people registry scheme.
    Licensing is just that. It starts with the registering of the vessel at birth, and ends with the death certificate.

    Register the guns so we know who has them so we can take them away. Same with needing a permit to carry.
    Last edited by SovereigntyOrDeath; 03-10-2015 at 10:10 PM.
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The ex governor of Washington admitted that licensing is about Law enFORCEment and knowing who's on the roads when explaining why she approved of giving licensing to "undocumented".

    It's not about safety.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Shift the focus of the discussion with your state legislators to "Why is the exercise of my right (OCing) a criminal offense that requires a permit to be exempt (hold a affirmative defense) from punishment for exercising my right (OCing)?

    Do not focus on the permit, focus on the criminalization of a right...that is the issue, not the permit.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,884
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Shift the focus of the discussion with your state legislators to "Why is the exercise of my right (OCing) a criminal offense that requires a permit to be exempt (hold a affirmative defense) from punishment for exercising my right (OCing)?

    Do not focus on the permit, focus on the criminalization of a right...that is the issue, not the permit.
    Hmmmm...+1

    good point & to be honest hadn't truly thought about that from this perspective...

    damnedest things make me go HMMMM ~ fascinating!

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    Hmmmm...+1

    good point & to be honest hadn't truly thought about that from this perspective...

    damnedest things make me go HMMMM ~ fascinating!

    ipse
    Everybody in the legal world knows of this and yet courts, cops, and elected critters do not wish to connect the dots.

    It has been addressed for one of those other BoR rights:
    Prior Restraint

    In First Amendment law, a prior restraint is government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place. There are two common forms of prior restraints. The first is a statute or regulation that requires a speaker to acquire a permit or license before speaking, and the second is a judicial injunction that prohibits certain speech. Both types of prior restraint are strongly disfavored, and, with some exceptions, generally unconstitutional.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/prior_restraint
    Now, why in the world cannot the SCOTUS not see what they have done for the 1A and not then apply that premise to the 2A.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  19. #19
    Regular Member SovereigntyOrDeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Coeur D Alene, Idaho
    Posts
    430
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    The ex governor of Washington admitted that licensing is about Law enFORCEment and knowing who's on the roads when explaining why she approved of giving licensing to "undocumented".

    It's not about safety.
    Ultimately it is about control and revenue.

    You know how you can tell a politician is not telling the truth? Their lips are moving.........
    "Nullification is the rightful remedy" Thomas Jefferson
    http://tracking.tenthamendmentcenter...-preservation/

    "Constitutional Carry is not an oxymoron"
    A Sovereign

    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." Thomas Jefferson

  20. #20
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Nobody's infringing on your right to travel by making you get licensed and registered. You can always use public transportation or walk or ride a bike or a horse. There's an over-riding public good achieved by making sure drivers actually know how to point their vehicle in a safe and lawful manner, and that for the financial protection of themself and the public at large they carry a certain minimum of liability insurance.

    Those are the main points I'm always told whenever the dichotomy between the right to travel and the government licensing/registering of the most common means of travel becomes the subject of conversation.

    Now where else have I heard those explanations? They sound so familiar.

    stay safe.
    False.

    The citizen funded freeways prohibit walking, biking, and horses being used on them.

    Vehicle denotes commercial transport. Do I really need to pull out Title 18 USC?
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  21. #21
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    False.

    The citizen funded freeways prohibit walking, biking, and horses being used on them.

    ...
    There ya go, injecting details that are better left out of such conversations because they muddy the waters.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,161
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    False. The citizen funded freeways prohibit walking, biking, and horses being used on them. [ ... ]
    One is not required to travel on your freeways. Indeed, where there is no alternative route, mode prohibitions are eased, allowing particularly bicyclists on Interstate freeways in the western states.

    The transportation advocacy literature is as large and mature as any other civil rights advocacy. John Forester's books provide the fundamentals.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Slidell, Louisiana
    Posts
    2,464
    Quote Originally Posted by Freedom1Man View Post
    False.

    The citizen funded freeways prohibit walking, biking, and horses being used on them.

    Vehicle denotes commercial transport. Do I really need to pull out Title 18 USC?
    No need to retort Skid's post He ' s being subtly sarcastic. Look at the last line he posted.

  24. #24
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,884
    i'm impressed skid, care to share if that was that creek or redtail you used?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    northern wis
    Posts
    3,201
    [QUOTE=Nightmare;2131769]Horses will avoid a collision, .[/QUOTE


    Not always I seen them run into things they could have avoided
    Personal Defensive Solutions professional personal firearms, edge weapons and hands on defensive training and tactics pdsolutions@hotmail.com

    Any and all spelling errors are just to give the spelling Nazis something to do

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •