Constitution question

I don't mean to be the complete opposite here, but I don't think you should follow through with what you are talking about doing here.

77zach said:

I have nothing but respect for you if you go through with it. I think you'll lose-these are kangaroo courts. At the least, I'd like to see how they get around the state constitution; "manner" does not mean licensing carry at all. But one could argue that IF concealed carry were unlicensed, a ban on OC would be allowed under the FL constitution.

The "good" thing is that the worst that happens is you get convicted of a misdemeanor. You can't even lose your CWFL!!

I say do it. You'll lose, but it will expose these farcical kangaroo "courts" for the traitorous domestic enemies that they are.

Click to expand...

I agree with you- and I appreciate it. Thank you

Mas49.56 said:

That's the way I see it too. A right that has to be paid for is no right at all. They can make getting a CCW free or allow free unrestricted OC to be in compliance with both constitutions IMHO.

Click to expand...

Agreed- one of them has to be unlicensed.

Schlitz said:

Hammer6, if you want to be the next Rosa Parks, I say GO FOR IT. Not everyone is in a position to be able to go through the crap that will follow an attempt to act as a true American and exercise the rights our founding fathers fought and died for.

Click to expand...

Thank you! I'll be back in FL Monday, and I'll begin my research and angles. I have at minimum one month before I'm off crutches and 100% healthy to walk, then it's on. Lol.

Until then- Anyone who has ideas- send me a PM!

mach1chris said:

I don't mean to be the complete opposite here, but I don't think you should follow through with what you are talking about doing here.

Click to expand...

Uummmmm why? I have a chance to do something honorable for my country- I'm gonna do my research and take this elitist, statist, restrictive, overreaching government on for the challenge. This is supposed to be WE the people- "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." nothing else.

hammer6 said:

My comments on here are protected by the first amendment, plus this is a private forum. And actually, Florida IS infringing on my right, because they turn it into a privilege by requiring me to PAY for a permit. It is no longer a right if I have to purchase a permit to do it. That's why I would win an open carry lawsuit, becuase there is no permit required- it's just illegal. Therefore, I have NO right to carry- only the option to purchase a privilege to carry. Which is unconstitutional.....

Click to expand...

I'm not saying you can't say what your saying just that it may be used against you in court that is all.

xmanhockey7 said:

I'm not saying you can't say what your saying just that it may be used against you in court that is all.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean- but I haven't suggested that I will commit a crime. The SCOTUS has already said something along the lines of - if a state turns a right into a privilege, or something that requires a fee, it's my duty to go against it and follow the constitution.

hammer6 said:

I know what you mean- but I haven't suggested that I will commit a crime. The SCOTUS has already said something along the lines of - if a state turns a right into a privilege, or something that requires a fee, it's my duty to go against it and follow the constitution.

Click to expand...

Do it. Expose the real criminals!

hammer6 said:

My comments on here are protected by the first amendment, plus this is a private forum.

Click to expand...

No, your comments here are not protected by the first amendment. At least, not if the site owner doesn't agree with then.

•(15) WE ADVOCATE FOR THE 'LAW-ABIDING' ONLY: Posts advocating illegal acts of any kind are NOT welcome here. Even if you feel that a law is unconstitutional we do not break it, we repeal it or defeat it in the courts.

Click to expand...

hammer6 said:

And actually, Florida IS infringing on my right, because they turn it into a privilege by requiring me to PAY for a permit. It is no longer a right if I have to purchase a permit to do it. That's why I would win an open carry lawsuit, becuase there is no permit required- it's just illegal. Therefore, I have NO right to carry- only the option to purchase a privilege to carry. Which is unconstitutional.....

Click to expand...

It isn't your Right to speak that is being questioned, though your speech here isn't a direct 1st amendment issue, it is an indirect one, based upon how the site owner desires the site to be used. If he don't like it, he don't need to allow it here.

It is whether the words you post can be used against you in any court proceedings. You are free to speak. LE like that you choose to do exactly that. There are times when the exercise of the 1st amendment Right will allow you to give up another Right under the 5th. Once you utter it, it is there.


But, you chose to speak about breaking the law, which the site owner has placed "off-limits" here.

My comments on here are protected by the first amendment, plus this is a private forum.

Click to expand...

For the record, this is not a private forum. Anyone can view this.

Schlitz said:

For the record, this is not a private forum. Anyone can view this.

Click to expand...

Correct, as I am typing this there are 94 members online and 642 guests. Guests can see everything, they just can't respond. For all we know half of the guests could be government agents....

wrightme said:

No, your comments here are not protected by the first amendment. At least, not if the site owner doesn't agree with then.



It isn't your Right to speak that is being questioned, though your speech here isn't a direct 1st amendment issue, it is an indirect one, based upon how the site owner desires the site to be used. If he don't like it, he don't need to allow it here.

It is whether the words you post can be used against you in any court proceedings. You are free to speak. LE like that you choose to do exactly that. There are times when the exercise of the 1st amendment Right will allow you to give up another Right under the 5th. Once you utter it, it is there.


But, you chose to speak about breaking the law, which the site owner has placed "off-limits" here.

Click to expand...

Ok first- lemme explain my private forum comment- I had to sign up- meaning I'm not just some passerby who commented. I've been on here since 2008. I know anyone can read this.

Second- First amendment rights are only protected against the government. If the owner of this forum doesn't want me to say a certain thing, he can ask me to stop, or remove me.


Third- please tell me what "illegal" act I have "said" I would do? Brief OC is legal in Florida, with no definition of brief. If a cop arrests me for OC, he is wrong, and thus my lawsuit begins.

Fourth- once the SCOTUS makes an opinion/ruling, that becomes "law", and doesn't change unless one of 2 things happen: 1. Congress passes an amendment or 2. The SCOTUS changes their mind.

SOOOOOOOO- unless the SCOTUS has made a new decision which I am unaware of, then their opinion to (my interpretation) "if a state turns a right into a privilege that requires a fee, it is unto the citizen to act according to the constitution with impunity" is still legit.

So, according to that, I am WELL within the law.

I'm not someone who "goes with the flow". I believe in free will and the foundation principles of our country. And I believe in the constitution.


So please- explain to me.

What about that FL supreme court case in 1941 where it gave us constitutional carry, well at least white people? Does that now count for naught just because the legislature has changed some details of the licensing scheme since then? Or has the Fl supreme court reversed itself since then. It would seem that would have been the only way, right? But I'm not aware of them doing so. If it's the case that they have not, well..... what are we waiting for?

The supreme court of Vermont invalidated all gun control 100 years ago, except in certain sensitive areas, and constitutional carry is still the law there. So if the Vt legislature passed a licensing scheme, that decision would be nullified? I didn't think the system worked like that. Either amendment or court reversal would have to take place.

77zach said:

What about that FL supreme court case in 1941 where it gave us constitutional carry, well at least white people? Does that now count for not just because the legislature has changed some details of the licensing scheme since then? Or has the Fl supreme court reversed itself since then. It would seem that would have been the only way, right? But I'm not aware of them doing so. If it's the case that they have not, well..... what are we waiting for?

Click to expand...

Naught.

hammer6 said:

Uummmmm why? I have a chance to do something honorable for my country- I'm gonna do my research and take this elitist, statist, restrictive, overreaching government on for the challenge. This is supposed to be WE the people- "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." nothing else.

Click to expand...

I understand how you feel, but I personally think you are a little over your head on this one. I believe the better way of doing it would be to VOTE!! in the right people, people that will respect the constitution and protect the rights of the people.

Trust me brother I know how you feel.

hammer6 said:

Ok first- lemme explain my private forum comment- I had to sign up- meaning I'm not just some passerby who commented. I've been on here since 2008. I know anyone can read this.

Click to expand...

If anyone can view this and anyone can sign up to comment within seconds.....it's not a private forum.

77zach said:

LOL.

In the words of George W Bush, the constitution is "just a goddam piece of paper." A cursory glance at the situation reveals we're fast approaching government purely by the Lenin principle: the only concern of our rulers is "who does what to whom".

Click to expand...

President Bush never said that. See http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim183.htm. Schwiesow is unabashed in his dislike for President Bush and his policies, but he admits that the attribution is false:

JamesCanby said:

President Bush never said that. See http://www.newswithviews.com/Schwiesow/jim183.htm. Schwiesow is unabashed in his dislike for President Bush and his policies, but he admits that the attribution is false:

"It is with a modicum of embarrassment that I lead off this article with a bit of mea culpa in regard to a piece of misinformation that was included in my last writing, The State of the Nation. In that composition I imputed the following quote to George W. Bush: “The Constitution is just a goddam piece of paper.” That contention was in fact not just a misstatement, but rather a repeating of a complete fabrication that was picked up and stated as gospel.

George W. Bush - who seems lately to have taken on a mythical persona as the great patriotic deliverer of the nation from an also mythical scenario of a near total destruction at the hands of a disorganized rabble of Islamic Jihadists - said and did many stupid things, but he did not make that statement."​

Click to expand...

Well, if that's the case, he treated it as such. Actions speak louder than words.

77zach said:

Well, if that's the case, he treated it as such. Actions speak louder than words.

Click to expand...

Well, if that's the case, you should be able to cite the myriad cases that have been successfully adjudicated in behalf of all of the plaintiffs that have sued the government over the abridgment of their civil rights.....

JamesCanby said:

Well, if that's the case, you should be able to cite the myriad cases that have been successfully adjudicated in behalf of all of the plaintiffs that have sued the government over the abridgment of their civil rights.....

Click to expand...

You are joking, right?