Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 49

Thread: A2 a Civil Right?

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948

    A2 a Civil Right?

    I have heard that A2 is a civil right, specifically after the recent SCOTUS decisions. Is this fact or opinion? If it's fact, do you have a cite?

  2. #2
    Regular Member Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,756
    Tagged
    Gun control isn't about the gun at all.... for those who want gun control it is all about their own fragile egos, their own lack of self esteem, their own inner fears, and most importantly... their own desire to dominate others. And an openly carried gun is a slap in the face to all of those things.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Tagged

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I have heard that A2 is a civil right, specifically after the recent SCOTUS decisions. Is this fact or opinion? If it's fact, do you have a cite?
    Here's your cite 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.

    Here's a link to McDonald v Chicago. And an excerpt from the Majority Decision:
    Municipal respondents’ remaining arguments are at war with our central holding in Heller: that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home.

    Here's a link to DC v Heller. And the decision:
    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    Last edited by boyscout399; 11-06-2010 at 05:41 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Thanks, any additional info would be appreciated. If I get evicted for OC, then I intend to sue the park for violating both A1 and A2.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    Thanks, any additional info would be appreciated. If I get evicted for OC, then I intend to sue the park for violating both A1 and A2.
    I thought you got the issue with OC resolved with the park?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I asked a friend in OCSD to look into it via email, I haven't gotten a response yet. And Brought it up in the meeting with state rep, don't know what they are going to do about it.

    I'll probably get kicked out for walking out to my car, mowing the lawn, taking out the trash or something like that. I wanted to know if I could sue them so bad that no park manager, or apartment manager would ever dare try to pull a stunt like this again.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Wyandotte, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    456
    Its an interesting question since you rent the land. I have my opinion since it's also your place of residence, but I have to wonder how the courts would rule on this one.

  9. #9
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445
    COMMENTS REMOVED BY MODERATOR: Personal attack

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    I don't have a sister.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    54
    McDonald incorporated the 2A against the States. It made a few references in the majority opinion that the justices felt that gun-ownership is a fundamental right.

    Justice Alito:
    "It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

    There will need to be several more cases to clarify exactly how SCotUS will apply this (especially in terms of scrutiny), so it's not necessarily an absolute.

    I do not think that you would be successful suing an apartment using Heller and McDonald as an argument. Mainly because you probably signed a contract that gave up certain rights.

    edit: forgot source: http://cssrc.us/publications.aspx?id...ookieSupport=1
    Last edited by Sefner; 11-06-2010 at 10:18 PM. Reason: added source

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    This was a memo stuck on my door, I didn't sign anything.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    They can regulate illegal activity, such as prostitution, or drug activity, but not things that are legal, and definitely not civil rights. They can't tell a jewish person they can't wear their hat, or a muslim they can't cover their wives face, and they can't tell a mexican that they can't speak spanish, so also they can't tell me I can't carry on my own property and in my trailer.

  14. #14
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    They can regulate illegal activity, such as prostitution, or drug activity, but not things that are legal, and definitely not civil rights. They can't tell a jewish person they can't wear their hat, or a muslim they can't cover their wives face, and they can't tell a mexican that they can't speak spanish, so also they can't tell me I can't carry on my own property and in my trailer.
    Landlords often have restrictions regarding people's pets; pets are legal, so there goes your first argument. The second, that they can't regulate civil rights may be true, but have you adequately defined "civil right"? It is a 'right', but I think 'civil rights' must be adequately defined; the 'civil' definitely denotes something specific.

    "Civil Rights" vs. "Civil Liberties"
    It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:

    Freedom of speech
    The right to privacy
    The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
    The right to a fair court trial
    The right to marry
    The right to vote

    I would think that, post McDonald, the right to "bear arms" would now apply here
    -http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-vs-liberties.html

    I wish we had the following law in Michigan. As I understand it, this law not only prohibits a landlord of a "dwelling" from banning firearms, it also affects places like the Mall of America, as they can't ban firearms... but individual stores can.

    Minnesota Statute 624.714Subd. 17(e)A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    -http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-vs-liberties.html

    When I tried this, it "did not match any documents"

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Landlords often have restrictions regarding people's pets; pets are legal, so there goes your first argument.
    There is no constitutional amendment to own a pet.

  17. #17
    Michigan Moderator DrTodd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hudsonville , Michigan, USA
    Posts
    3,337
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    -http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-vs-liberties.html

    When I tried this, it "did not match any documents"
    Take the dash off from the beginning...it was denoting that it's a quote.
    Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us win.

    "Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

    Disclaimer – I am not a lawyer! Please do not consider anything you read from me to be legal advice.

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    What about the free speech part of OC?

    And what about those who don't have a CPL? If they don't have a car (like me many times) then they can't carry the gun off the park property to use their RKBA.

    I'll go check the link.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247
    I think that normally when we consider what are civil rights and lawsuits concerning those most people mean the one spelled out in law such as age, sex, race, religion, national-origion, and disibilities added later. You then follow-up with the second category of those spelled out in the Constitution. So to say that A2 is a civil right is to put it into the context that you are refering as there is nothing in law that spells it out, rather it is in the Constitution. The recent SCOTUS rulings have defined somewhat how A2 applies but it is not the universal right or civil right that we are hoping for or as some believe.

    Just remember that the interpretation of A2 is not universal yet and to prove your interpretation may be a long, hard, expensive road.

  20. #20
    Regular Member Fuller Malarkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    The Cadre
    Posts
    1,077
    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    I have heard that A2 is a civil right, specifically after the recent SCOTUS decisions. Is this fact or opinion? If it's fact, do you have a cite?
    Right to keep and bear arms

    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.
    http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#2


    Quote Originally Posted by stainless1911 View Post
    This was a memo stuck on my door, I didn't sign anything.
    I didn't get a decoder ring with my starter kit when I signed up on this forum, so bear with me while I try to connect the dots here. You live in a trailer park. You did not sign a contract, rental agreement, no document detailing what you would be provided in exchange for your money? The establishment of your legal residence is based on a "memo stuck on your door"?
    Are you the primary renter of this trailer, or are you a "sub-renter", with accountability to the primary renter?

    Here is where the absence of the decoder ring makes comprehension real sticky: I can't tell what was written on the note.

    The other members lucky enough to have received the decoder ring are probably keeping up just fine with your plight, but without that ring, I can't tell what the note says.

    Would you, please, post who posted the memo, when, what it said? [the memo]

    Do you have any idea what may have prompted a memo being stuck on your door? Like an incident with a neighbor or with trailer park staff? No accidental discharges at the mailbox or armed standoffs on the playground? Has alcohol been a related factor in any incident that may have prompted a "memo" on your door?
    Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
    ~Citizen

    From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

    "People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Belleville , michigan, ,
    Posts
    287
    I think your screwed, you signed a rental agreement and they own the property. You are leasing your lot but they still maintain ownership of their property and agreed to lease out said property under a specific set of terms that you agreed to. You agreed to terms and now they are acting according to those terms, if you have a problem with it you should have not moved there in the first place.

    Most leases have a auto renewal clause on a month to month basis and most have a clause allowing them to change terms after your initial term if it is auto renewing. YOU agreed to the terms when you moved in.

    I really wish everyone carried and maybe one day they will but I am also a strong supporter of private property rights and again, it is their property and they are leasing it to you under a set of terms you agreed to. And something else to consider is your broke, this if tried in court would not be a cut and dry c. rights case so I doubt your gonna get a pro bono lawyer for it.

  22. #22
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    That's exactly why they are still getting away with it after decades of crap like this.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Davisburg, Michigan, United States
    Posts
    8,948
    Last edited by stainless1911; 11-07-2010 at 01:09 PM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member TheSzerdi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Melvindale, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    290
    Quote Originally Posted by DrTodd View Post
    Landlords often have restrictions regarding people's pets; pets are legal, so there goes your first argument. The second, that they can't regulate civil rights may be true, but have you adequately defined "civil right"? It is a 'right', but I think 'civil rights' must be adequately defined; the 'civil' definitely denotes something specific.

    "Civil Rights" vs. "Civil Liberties"
    It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:

    Freedom of speech
    The right to privacy
    The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
    The right to a fair court trial
    The right to marry
    The right to vote

    I would think that, post McDonald, the right to "bear arms" would now apply here
    -http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-vs-liberties.html

    I wish we had the following law in Michigan. As I understand it, this law not only prohibits a landlord of a "dwelling" from banning firearms, it also affects places like the Mall of America, as they can't ban firearms... but individual stores can.

    Minnesota Statute 624.714Subd. 17(e)A landlord may not restrict the lawful carry or possession of firearms by tenants or their guests.
    Is religion classified as a civil right, a civil liberty, or both? I see bearing arms in much the same light as religion. My decision to carry a firearm for self-defense is a belief that I hold dear and would not willingly change, just as religion is to many people.

    Edited to add: Is it discrimination for a private business to ban outward expressions of religion? Such as a Jewish Kippah (yarmulke), a Muslim veil, or a Christian cross? If that is discrimination, then why is it not discrimination to ban the outward expression of my belief in the sanctity of life and defense thereof, which I hold more sacred than any religion?
    Last edited by TheSzerdi; 11-07-2010 at 01:42 PM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lyman, Maine
    Posts
    905
    Quote Originally Posted by PT111 View Post
    I think that normally when we consider what are civil rights and lawsuits concerning those most people mean the one spelled out in law such as age, sex, race, religion, national-origion, and disibilities added later. You then follow-up with the second category of those spelled out in the Constitution. So to say that A2 is a civil right is to put it into the context that you are refering as there is nothing in law that spells it out, rather it is in the Constitution. The recent SCOTUS rulings have defined somewhat how A2 applies but it is not the universal right or civil right that we are hoping for or as some believe.

    Just remember that the interpretation of A2 is not universal yet and to prove your interpretation may be a long, hard, expensive road.
    People often have lawsuits regarding free speech infringement. The Supreme Court has said that the 2A holds the same weight as the 1A. Therefore it would seem to follow that just as free speech can't be interfered with, bearing of arms can't as well... Look for a Michigan statute regarding interfering with human rights or constitutional rights or something like that... I know Maine has this law which makes interfering with Constitutional Rights a crime punishable by 364 days in prison.

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
  •