Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: discussion in Texas forum

  1. #1
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169

    discussion in Texas forum

    i just wanted to copy a post from that forum over to here, and see what everyone thought.


    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105: "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."
    Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946 “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights."
    Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama, 373 US 262: "If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."

    i copied this from another site:


    U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=92&invol=542

    In 1875 SCOTUS ruled the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is not dependent on the Constitution for it's validity, because that right existed before the writing of the Constitution. In further explanation, the court compared the 2nd Amd to right to free speech and worship and so noted free speech and freedom to worship existed long before the Constitution was written. Thus, the Court said, the RKBA was equal in status with the 1st Amd rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

    "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."


    PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=116&invol=252

    Just eleven years later, in 1886, SCOTUS stated the RKBA predated the formation of the U.S. Government and the writing of the Constitution. SCOTUS further stated the RKBA wasn't dependent on the former entity or the latter document. In addition, SCOTUS stated the 2nd Amd was created to prevent the Federal Government and Congress from infringing on RKBA!

    "....in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government..."


    MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 319 U.S. 105 (1943)
    http://www.constitution.org/ussc/319-105a.htm
    In 1943 SCOTUS ruled that a right enumerated in the Constitution could not be licensed or taxed. Murdock was a Jehovah's Witness who preached in public and who also may've tresspassed to preach. The govt said Murdock needed to secure a Federal license and pay a Federal tax to preach. SCOTUS said otherwise, and ruled that a right recognized and so guaranteed by the Constitution could not be licensed or taxed. In this light, every single pistol permit licensing and fee scheme in all 50 states is unconstitutional. So would be any attempt by the Feds to implement a Fed licensing, registration, or taxation scheme. If only gun owners would come together and pool some funds, then every pistol permit scheme across the United States could be challenged as unconstitutional, based on the SCOTUS decision in Murdock.

    "....a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'"



    Boyd v. US 116 US 616 -- The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured rights.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  2. #2
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    1963: GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT - The court found that Amendments that are, "fundamental safeguards of liberty" are immune from both federal and state "abridgment" under the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. and POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA are both cited.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  3. #3
    Regular Member crashnjax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United States
    Posts
    156
    This is most excellent. Very good work. This is something i will use in my campaign if you dont mind it, that is. If Florida could just come together and work as a team we can defeat big money government. Jojo712 see what you can make of it. This is something we can definitely use i think.
    Last edited by crashnjax; 05-29-2011 at 09:16 AM. Reason: forgot something
    John Strifler for FL State Senate District 1 for 2012
    crashnjax@att.net
    crash.jax_fl on yahoo
    johnstrifler4senate.proboards.com

    Political advertisement paid for and approved by John p. Strifler, no party affiliation, state senate

  4. #4
    Regular Member Mas49.56's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    309
    That's a full box of lawsuit ammo right there. Looks like the state would have to allow free CCW or free OC to be in compliance. Can a Florida subject sue or do we have to be arrested first to have standing?

  5. #5
    Regular Member crashnjax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida, United States
    Posts
    156

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by Mas49.56 View Post
    That's a full box of lawsuit ammo right there. Looks like the state would have to allow free CCW or free OC to be in compliance. Can a Florida subject sue or do we have to be arrested first to have standing?
    Good morning, I am waiting on my legal team to examine all of that info. As soon as i get the word i will make sure it is posted asap.
    John Strifler for FL State Senate District 1 for 2012
    crashnjax@att.net
    crash.jax_fl on yahoo
    johnstrifler4senate.proboards.com

    Political advertisement paid for and approved by John p. Strifler, no party affiliation, state senate

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Quote Originally Posted by Mas49.56 View Post
    That's a full box of lawsuit ammo right there. Looks like the state would have to allow free CCW or free OC to be in compliance. Can a Florida subject sue or do we have to be arrested first to have standing?
    Good point, and a good question- thoughts,anyone?
    The State Consitution is rather bland on that matter..

    Article X - MISC.
    " SECTION 13. Suits against the state.—Provision may be made by general law for bringing suit against the state as to all liabilities now existing or hereafter originating."

    http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...1044861#A10S13

  7. #7
    Regular Member ~*'Phoenix'*~'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    538
    Just thought I'd add a few things here:
    Not explicitly 2a, but explicitly Constitution/Bill-of-Rights en masse, these come from a publication about the true rights and responsibilities of a Jury:

    “The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided.” Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1941 (concerning any trial by Jury)

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

    “When rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
    legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491.

    “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no
    protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton vs. Shelby County 118 US 425 p. 442

    “The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it."
    “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” 16
    Am Jur 2nd, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256
    Last edited by ~*'Phoenix'*~; 05-29-2011 at 11:27 AM.
    American Government 101:
    The Executive branch's job is to provide celebrity figureheads for the pandering populace.
    The Legislative branch's job is to progressively destroy our freedoms for the "safety" of "We the Sheeple."
    The Judicial branch's job is to look like they're defending our freedoms against the abuses of the Legislative branch, only by token gestures that do not interfere is this pivotal process, but enough to deceive "We the People" into a false sense of security.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    The Fl supreme court has already given constitutional carry to all white people, too. This is irrelevant now. The courts only go by what the latest opinions say. Thus, in Heller the government can do whatever it wants short of banning handguns. In fact, in the next few years, OC bans will probably be expressly permitted by the SAF/NRA lawsuit in Illinois. The result of their suit will most likely find that a complete ban or even a discretionary licensing scheme is unconstitutional. But it will affirm that the state may license and regulate the manner of carry. They'll say you have a "right" BUT (always a but) the government can require a license (as long as it meets objective criteria to ensure "public safety") and may ban open or concealed carry but not BOTH. The state is afraid of guns in the hands of its victims plus it has a vested interest in maintaining the myth that it is improper and shocking for anyone but its agents to be visibly armed. Illinois will choose concealed only. This Fl law will be validated.

    The only way Fl gets OC is through the legislature.
    Last edited by 77zach; 05-29-2011 at 11:33 AM.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    fl
    Posts
    1,835
    Ah,good point. Pretty much how I was reading it, in the Const...
    All the more reason then, to alter the composition of said Legislature .
    Last edited by j4l; 05-29-2011 at 11:50 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    The Fl supreme court has already given constitutional carry to all white people, too. This is irrelevant now. The courts only go by what the latest opinions say. Thus, in Heller the government can do whatever it wants short of banning handguns. In fact, in the next few years, OC bans will probably be expressly permitted by the SAF/NRA lawsuit in Illinois. The result of their suit will most likely find that a complete ban or even a discretionary licensing scheme is unconstitutional. But it will affirm that the state may license and regulate the manner of carry. They'll say you have a "right" BUT (always a but) the government can require a license (as long as it meets objective criteria to ensure "public safety") and may ban open or concealed carry but not BOTH. The state is afraid of guns in the hands of its victims plus it has a vested interest in maintaining the myth that it is improper and shocking for anyone but its agents to be visibly armed. Illinois will choose concealed only. This Fl law will be validated.

    The only way Fl gets OC is through the legislature.


    Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105: "No State shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefore."


    many many SCOTUS cases have shown that the 2nd amendment did not create the right to bear arms, that right was there long before the constitution was written, and it was included in the constitution so as to make sure the government could not do away with it. look at the CRUIKSHANK case up above...
    Last edited by hammer6; 05-29-2011 at 05:37 PM. Reason: simplicity
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  11. #11
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Quote Originally Posted by crashnjax View Post
    This is most excellent. Very good work. This is something i will use in my campaign if you dont mind it, that is. If Florida could just come together and work as a team we can defeat big money government. Jojo712 see what you can make of it. This is something we can definitely use i think.
    duh!!!!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  12. #12
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169

    florida supreme court

    A 1941 opinion by Florida Supreme Court Justice Rivers Buford provided a frank explanation of why the carry ban was enacted and how it had actually been enforced:

    “I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of African American laborers in this state drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the act was amended in 1901 and the act was passed for the purpose of disarming the African American laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. We have no statistics avail*able, but it is a safe guess that more than 80 percent of the white men living in rural sections of Florida have violated this statute. It is also a safe guess to say that not more than 5 percent of the men in Florida who own pistols and repeating rifles have ever applied to the Board of County Commissioners for a permit to have the same in their possession and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested” (Watson v. State, concurring opinion).



    take a look at this part- the part that is juicy:

    "...and there has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested” (Watson v. State, concurring opinion)."


    the justice is, right there, admitting that the licensing law is UNconstitutional, and less than 5% of the people at the time followed that law, and even IF a charge was brought against someone violating it, they would not be guilty...
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  13. #13
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the majority, said the right to self-defense protected by the Second Amendment was fundamental to the American conception of ordered liberty. Like other provisions of the Bill of Rights setting out such fundamental protections, he said, it must be applied to limit not only federal power but also that of state and local governments.


    Five justices wrote opinions in the case, with many pages examining the history of the Second and 14th Amendments. The justices in the majority said that history supported both finding a fundamental individual right and applying it to state and local laws.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

  14. #14
    Regular Member hammer6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,169
    tenth amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


    the second amendment is in the bill of rights. therefore, how can a state tell you that you cannot open carry? this is in direct violation of the second amendment.

    we need to stop focusing our efforts on getting legislation passed, but need to file a lawsuit with the state supreme court and the SCOTUS that the laws in florida violate the incorporation of the 2nd amendment to the states through the 10th and 14th amendments.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    doubt is a distraction from reality. fear is acknowledging doubt as reality.

    it's time to tap in to a higher reality; the one you were made for.

Posting Permissions

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