• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

discussion in Texas forum

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
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.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
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.
 

crashnjax

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
156
Location
Jacksonville, Florida, United States
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:

Mas49.56

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2010
Messages
308
Location
Florida, USA
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?
 

crashnjax

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
156
Location
Jacksonville, Florida, United States
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. :dude:
 

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
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...atutes&CFID=212037543&CFTOKEN=21044861#A10S13
 

~*'Phoenix'*~

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2011
Messages
538
Location
Florida
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:

77zach

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,913
Location
Marion County, FL
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:

j4l

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2011
Messages
1,835
Location
fl
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:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
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:

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
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!!!!
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
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 Negro 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 negro 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...
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
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.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
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.
 
Top