No Pets, no guns...Inside the building at Jamestown Island - a National Park

ocholsteroc said:

So you are saying that carrying to the post office is "technically" legal?

Click to expand...

That's my opinion, assuming that "carrying" means lawfully carrying as defined by the state you're in.

t33j said:

:uhoh:

Still not sure how it makes sense in the first place.

It's not even like the post office or The Department of XXXXX makes its own rules to get around, "Congress shall make no law..."

or how preemption doesn't apply to the DGIF.

Click to expand...

That's the question you're not supposed to ask. You're saying that the emperor has no clothes on. A "right" ought to be absolute, but as we learned recently in Heller, your rights are "subject to reasonable regulation", and of course, "reasonable" means whatever the United States thinks is "reasonable".

user said:

That's the question you're not supposed to ask. You're saying that the emperor has no clothes on. A "right" ought to be absolute, but as we learned recently in Heller, your rights are "subject to reasonable regulation", and of course, "reasonable" means whatever the United States thinks is "reasonable".

Click to expand...

Question of clarification:

In Heller, the majority opinion states on Page 54:


Does that not in fact mean that they are not considering the Constitutionality of these restrictions, but for the purpose of this case, are merely assuming them to be OK?

I know the antis have taken that one paragraph as a huge victory, but I don't see that it means what they think it means...

TFred

CTN (Coffee Through Nose)..., Dang, Peter!

peter nap said:

That's absolutely true Sidestreet, but I expect things would get a little confusing if you were married to Hillary.:lol:

Click to expand...

Understandable..., she's had to wear the pants in the family 'cause Bill has such a problem keeping his on and zipped up, but that doesn't mean he's gotta grudge **** the rest of us!

sidestreet

we are not equal, we will never be equal, but we must be relentless.

TFred said:

Question of clarification:

In Heller, the majority opinion states on Page 54:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.​

Does that not in fact mean that they are not considering the Constitutionality of these restrictions, but for the purpose of this case, are merely assuming them to be OK?

I know the antis have taken that one paragraph as a huge victory, but I don't see that it means what they think it means...

TFred

Click to expand...

I believe that you are entirely correct. The problem I see is the distinction between how such limitations work with respect to the relationship between a citizen and his state, subject to his own state's constitution, and the relationship between a citizen and the United States. My problem with the whole incorporation of the 14th Amendment due process clause thing has been that it's sort of been reversed - instead of limiting the behavior of states in denying due process to citizens (and the Court has specifically said that it's not going to do that), it has been used to water down the rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights by saying that the latitude that states have under the U.S. Constitution applies to the United States as well. I strongly object to both of those interpretations because they have the net result of the denial of the rights of citizens. Federal courts will not enforce the provision that guarantees you the right to proper procedure under your state's laws pursuant to the 14th Amendment, nor will they enforce your rights as absolute vis-a-vis the U.S. under the Bill of Rights.

user said:

That's the question you're not supposed to ask. You're saying that the emperor has no clothes on. A "right" ought to be absolute, but as we learned recently in Heller, your rights are "subject to reasonable regulation", and of course, "reasonable" means whatever the United States thinks is "reasonable".

Click to expand...

What they are really saying is we are not endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, because those pre-existing rights would not be subject to "reasonable regulation", they would be exactly what they have always been when given to us by our creator (pre-existing and absolute). Stated another way: Men in black robes cannot improve on what God has given us.

In reality we are told by big brother what he will allow us to do. Sometimes it is even worse, as big brother decides that they will subject us to ex-post facto regulation via selective and arbitrary interpretation of the "reasonable regulation".