Underage after 29th?

wrightme said:

As long as case law, statute, and state constitutions differ with your opinion, your opinion holds no weight in the eyes of the law.

Click to expand...

Or rather, that the law somehow trumps the Constitution? Or perhaps, laws infringe upon our rights? Shocking, I know.

protias said:

Or rather, that the law somehow trumps the Constitution? Or perhaps, laws infringe upon our rights? Shocking, I know.

Click to expand...

"The only guarantee of the Bill of Rights which continues to have any force and effect is the one prohibiting quartering troops on citizens in time of peace. All the rest have been disposed of by judicial interpretation and legislative whittling. Probably the worst thing that has happened in America in my time is the decay of confidence in the courts. No one can be sure any more that in a given case they will uphold the plainest mandate of the Constitution. On the contrary, everyone begins to be more or less convinced in advance that they won't. Judges are chosen not because they know the Constitution and are in favor of it, but precisely because they appear to be against it."--H.L. Mencken

The more things change the more stay stay the same.

protias said:

Or rather, that the law somehow trumps the Constitution? Or perhaps, laws infringe upon our rights? Shocking, I know.

Click to expand...

At times, laws DO "trump" the Constitution. And the mechanism for challenge is clear, and works in many instances.

Laws are the rule, unless challenged and tossed down. McDonald v Chicago was a reasonable example. It really does not matter what WE believe; it matters what transpires in the courts after a conviction challenge reaches the courts.

protias said:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Seems like a right to me, and not a privilege.

Click to expand...

Your Right to Bear Arms is a Right. HOW they are born is subject to regulation. Just like your right to peacably assemble and freedom of speech is a RIGHT, but HOW you exercise it can be regulated. You must get a permit to hold a parade down main street or hold a rally on the city hall steps.

Under your opinion, prisoners in jail should have their guns with them, since they have a RIGHT to bear arms, and apparently Rights cannot be curtailed or reasonably regulated.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not an anarchy.

AZkopper said:

Your Right to Bear Arms is a Right. HOW they are born is subject to regulation. Just like your right to peacably assemble and freedom of speech is a RIGHT, but HOW you exercise it can be regulated. You must get a permit to hold a parade down main street or hold a rally on the city hall steps.

Under your opinion, prisoners in jail should have their guns with them, since they have a RIGHT to bear arms, and apparently Rights cannot be curtailed or reasonably regulated.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not an anarchy.

Click to expand...

Wrong, criminals deserve to be hung. Of course, there are so many rules and regulations, everyone breaks at least 1 law every day. By criminals, I mean murderers, thieves, etc. Also, you have to love to get taxed for everything you do. Want to assemble? Fine, but there's a tax. Want to buy something. Fine, but there's a tax. Want to drive? Fine, but there's a tax. If you haven't noticed, we were once a Constitutional Republic, now, I hardly think so. We are coming closer and closer to a democracy.

wrightme said:

As long as case law, statute, and state constitutions differ with your opinion, your opinion holds no weight in the eyes of the law.

Click to expand...

Which is precisely what makes the law wrong.

There is really no point in arguing about this. Some people support the fabricated mysterious 'finding' of the courts that it is subject to regulation. Some people don't. I am one of the latter. I've no doubt this 'finding' exists, and there are consequences for defying it. But this 'finding' did not come from law, but is an arbitrary contrivance that wrests a Right into a Privilege... At least for those who tolerate it.

The shouting of "fire" is, in essence, not a restriction on the 1st Amendment, so this analogy is flawed. It is a restriction on causing harm to others. No action that has an interest in doing harm to others is a Right. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is not, at it's root, speech. Therefore it is not protected by the 1st, and the 1st is not infringed upon by that limitation. I don't believe the Court's interpretation is as granular as mine, but the Spirit is the same if not so well defined.

ixtow said:

Which is precisely what makes the law wrong.

Click to expand...

Stating that "the law is wrong" does not remove the requirement to either adhere to the law, or suffer the punishment for violating the law.

ixtow said:

There is really no point in arguing about this. Some people support the fabricated mysterious 'finding' of the courts that it is subject to regulation. Some people don't. I am one of the latter. I've no doubt this 'finding' exists, and there are consequences for defying it. But this 'finding' did not come from law, but is an arbitrary contrivance that wrests a Right into a Privilege... At least for those who tolerate it.

Click to expand...

Whether it is arbitrary or not isn't the issue. Whether it is still enacted and not overturned is the issue. As long as a law is on the books and not overturned, it is enforceable; whether we agree with it or not. This is the reality of our country, whether it is convenient for you or not.

ixtow said:

The shouting of "fire" is, in essence, not a restriction on the 1st Amendment, so this analogy is flawed. It is a restriction on causing harm to others. No action that has an interest in doing harm to others is a Right. Shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater is not, at it's root, speech. Therefore it is not protected by the 1st, and the 1st is not infringed upon by that limitation. I don't believe the Court's interpretation is as granular as mine, but the Spirit is the same if not so well defined.

Click to expand...

I mentioned nothing about shouting "fire" in a theater. In fact, it is entirely lawful to do so, when it is accurate. Doing such to cause panic is not an exercise of a Right, but an exercise of intent to cause harm.

Just curious, what is your reply to a request for your age if leo asked?
While no longer an issue for me, I will always reply "I don't know, while I was there for my birth
I cannot recall when it was." I will not risk a lie based on information told to me by others.
Just be prepared to meet the car hood, and be thankful it is cheap tinfoil now.

Where can't he OC, how about Obama rally? Even some koolaid drinkers have guns.
You are supposed to be able to redress your grievances with the government.

wrightme said:

Stating that "the law is wrong" does not remove the requirement to either adhere to the law, or suffer the punishment for violating the law.

Click to expand...

I am aware, and this is precisely why I am not advising anyone to do as I do, simply that it is possible.

wrightme said:

Whether it is arbitrary or not isn't the issue. Whether it is still enacted and not overturned is the issue. As long as a law is on the books and not overturned, it is enforceable; whether we agree with it or not. This is the reality of our country, whether it is convenient for you or not.

Click to expand...

Convenience has nothing to do with it. I do not disagree that it is the reality we have. But this reality is a perversion of fact and civility. I will uphold those before I uphold perversion. Blind obedience/allegiance to hatred and mental illness is not a positive trait.

wrightme said:

I mentioned nothing about shouting "fire" in a theater. In fact, it is entirely lawful to do so, when it is accurate. Doing such to cause panic is not an exercise of a Right, but an exercise of intent to cause harm.

Click to expand...

I know you didn't, but it is the common example people make when speaking of the 'reasonable restriction' argument. It does seem that we are in agreement on this as well. I said essentially the same thing.

I consider it a civic duty to be defiant and am willing to take the risks. If you choose otherwise, that's your choice. I only offer my perspective here such that a choice is seen by the OP, instead of just the 'legal only' ideals. He seemed to be weighing the risk vs benefit, so I explored it. One might call it a unique perspective as few people are will to take risks, they just like to enjoy what is gained for them by those who do.

Frankly, it's not much of a risk. You would have to do something that gives an officer RAS or PC to search you in order to find it. Even with that, it's a misdemeanor for you guys. I take a much higher risk, and consider it to be worthwhile. But that's me. You may have more fear for yourself, you may believe that obeying laws makes you a good person no matter what those laws are, etc... I don't care. That's not the point. If I obeyed the laws of my State, I wouldn't be alive to post this message. Should the matter come up, I'd still rather be judged by 12 (or even 1) than carried by 6. Even if it's s slam dunk case against me and I am found guilty. It's better than being dead. Fundamentally, that is the choice you are making when you obey a gun ban of any type. Your choice to make. I am simply representing the side of that coin that gets little press here.

ixtow said:

I am aware, and this is precisely why I am not advising anyone to do as I do, simply that it is possible.



Convenience has nothing to do with it. I do not disagree that it is the reality we have. But this reality is a perversion of fact and civility. I will uphold those before I uphold perversion. Blind obedience/allegiance to hatred and mental illness is not a positive trait.

Click to expand...

I have not advocated "blind obedience/allegiance." I advocate lawful activity. I also encourage activism to work towards solutions that remove infringements.

ixtow said:

I know you didn't, but it is the common example people make when speaking of the 'reasonable restriction' argument. It does seem that we are in agreement on this as well. I said essentially the same thing.

Click to expand...

No, you clearly stated that "the law is wrong, and you won't follow it." That is not the "same thing."

wrightme said:

No, you clearly stated that "the law is wrong, and you won't follow it." That is not the "same thing."

Click to expand...

You're nearly impossible to have a civilized conversation with. Those two subjects were not related. I'm not even sure why you invented this sentence.

Yes, the law is wrong and I choose not to obey it. Period.

I also explained how the 'reasonable restriction' analogy of the 1st Amendment is not actually a restriction upon it. The premise of which you virtually repeated yourself, I'm guessing you didn't actually read what I wrote. What you said on that topic was damn near exactly the same thing that I did.

I did not try to tie one to the other, so I'm not sure what it is you're arguing against. Are you pretending I related them, so you can try to blast me for having relating them, which is something I didn't do?

I was explaining that since a Reasonable Restriction doesn't actually exist on the 1st (which you re-iterated yourself and then told me I wasn't doing), using that as an excuse to create a Reasonable Restriction upon others is deceptive.

It's like saying that since Air is made out of Bananas, we should make Water out of Bananas as well. It is presumption of a false premise. Pretending to apply it to 'this ALSO,' when the 'also' doesn't make sense and doesn't exist to begin with.

That false premise does exist in law. I'm not arguing that. I'm just not going along with it because it is a demented, hateful perversion. It seemed like the OP was weighing that possibility, so I chose to discuss it.

I have articulated it exceptionally well, and in multiple redundancies. If you're still going to make something of it that it isn't, then you may waste your time doing so but no more of mine.

ixtow said:

You're nearly impossible to have a civilized conversation with. Those two subjects were not related. I'm not even sure why you invented this sentence.

Yes, the law is wrong and I choose not to obey it. Period.

Click to expand...

Which is your choice. It is not a sound basis for an argument.

It is VERY possible to have a civilized conversation with me. But, a good place to start is if you do not assume you are the only one holding a valid viewpoint.

ixtow said:

I also explained how the 'reasonable restriction' analogy of the 1st Amendment is not actually a restriction upon it. The premise of which you virtually repeated yourself, I'm guessing you didn't actually read what I wrote. What you said on that topic was damn near exactly the same thing that I did.

I did not try to tie one to the other, so I'm not sure what it is you're arguing against. Are you pretending I related them, so you can try to blast me for having relating them, which is something I didn't do?

Click to expand...

On this one, I am not sure what the deal was. Honestly.

I saw your unaltered post shortly after you posted it, and recall it actually not being what it is now. You posted at 7:58, I responded by 8:11, you edited it at 8:06.

I have seen similar oddities with the vbulletin software, where a quoted reply gets posted with edited text from the quoted post, even if the responder never saw the edited content. I recall that you did not have it worded as you do now.

AZkopper said:

Your Right to Bear Arms is a Right. HOW they are born is subject to regulation. Just like your right to peacably assemble and freedom of speech is a RIGHT, but HOW you exercise it can be regulated. You must get a permit to hold a parade down main street or hold a rally on the city hall steps.

Under your opinion, prisoners in jail should have their guns with them, since they have a RIGHT to bear arms, and apparently Rights cannot be curtailed or reasonably regulated.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not an anarchy.

Click to expand...

There are two kinds of laws, "Common Law" and UCC Unified Commercial Codes" thats "Codes & Statues"
The change came mostly after the civil war. In 1933 it was locked in at that point in time.
Under Common law Prisoners Lose there rights for the time they are serving their time.
Cole Younger, after 26 years in Prison, got his gun rights back and All rights were restored.
Today we are controled through "Cooprate" Laws >UCC and are regulated as a money mechanisum
"Resources", rather then a "Freeman on the land". With Common law rights !

Robin47