Is mandating a CPL infringing and impairing on our Constitutional Rights?

[44Brent]

imported post

I believe that a right is abused through licensing systems. Suppose that there were a law that said that you must be licensed to publish news articles on the internet, but that it is OK to publish articles in a newspaper without a license?

Would reporters for a traditional media outlet such as the Seattle Times accept that as a reasonable restriction on the 1st Amendment?

 

[Tawnos]

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

"Infringed." What exactly does "infringed" mean. Then, what is "reasonable."

The Government can tell you to do whatever they want. As Martin Luther King once said--there are "moral laws...and immoral laws." Firearm restrictions are immoral.

I believe mandating a CPL is unreasonable, but does not infringe on our "legal rights." That is one of the loopholes of "restrictions" and red tape, isn't it, that they "shall issue" after you pay up and jump through a bunch of hoops.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe

intransitive verb[/i] : encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>synonyms see trespass
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encroach
1 : to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another
2 : to advance beyond the usual or proper limits <the gradually encroaching sea>
synonyms see trespass

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trespass
1 a : a violation of moral or social ethics : transgression; especially : sin b : an unwarranted infringement
2 a : an unlawful act committed on the person, property, or rights of another; especially : a wrongful entry on real property b : the legal action for injuries resulting from trespass



Compare:



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impair
: to damage or make worse by or as if by diminishing in some material respect <his health was impaired by overwork> <the strike seriously impaired community services>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/material

2 : having real importance or great consequences <facts material to the investigation>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/damage

1 : loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation


I reversed my earlier statements regarding impair and infringe, but take the above to mind when discussing various documents. A CPL does not inherently make the right to keep and bear arms "worse", nor does it damage the right to keep and bear arms. It may infringe, but it does not impair, so until/unless McDonald leads to incorporation, the argument that a CPL infringes means jack-all.

 

[Jack House]

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

the argument that a CPL infringes means jack-all.

I disagree. If you are too young to apply for one, your right is infringed/impaired. If you can't afford one, your right is infringed/impaired. If you have to wait longer than a few moments(think getting a state ID vs having to wait a month or more to be approved for a CCW), then your right is infringed/impaired. If you are denied, then your right is infringed/impaired.


Of course, you could always make the argument that as long as you are able to open carry without restriction, that the state is free to regulate concealed carry all it wants.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

"No, it can't.

The federal constitution is pretty clear on this. Any powers not specifically granted to the federal government by the constitution do not belong to it. The government cannot tell you to do ANYTHING unless it is specifically mentioned in the constitution."

Yes, it can. The Constitution is interpreted, which means nearly anything can be deemed legal under the Constitution.


"firearms restrictions, they are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, pure & simple."

I completely agree.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

Jack House wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

the argument that a CPL infringes means jack-all.

Of course, you could always make the argument that as long as you are able to open carry without restriction, that the state is free to regulate concealed carry all it wants.

Unless you're in a vehicle, then you cannot legally carry loaded, which could mean the difference between life and death in a worst case scenario.

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Yes, it can. The Constitution is interpreted, which means nearly anything can be deemed legal under the Constitution.

Hold on, Sylvia...

In this thread:sudden valley gunner wrote:

The constitution is not a living breathing document to be interpreted, this thinking is progressive/socialist/tyranny/elitist propaganda that is wrongly taught in our schools. These rights are not granted to us or given to us by the constitutions, it is a statement that these areour "unalienable" rights. Especially the 2A it even includes the words "shall not be infringed".

It is up to us on how far we let the government keep overstepping it's boundaries.

you stated

Sylvia Plath wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

It is up to us on how far we let the government keep overstepping it's boundaries.

I agree.

You responded to svg's post with no objections and said you agree, to at least part of it. Your most recent post sounds like a contradiction.

So, I must ask: Do the words in the Constitution have an absolute meaning, or is everything written there open to the whims of those hired to interpret??

 

[Metalhead47]

imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Yes, it can.  The Constitution is interpreted, which means nearly anything can be deemed legal under the Constitution.

Hold on, Sylvia...

In this thread: sudden valley gunner wrote:

The constitution is not a living breathing document to be interpreted, this thinking is progressive/socialist/tyranny/elitist propaganda that is wrongly taught in our schools.  These rights are not granted to us or given to us by the constitutions, it is a statement that these are our "unalienable" rights. Especially the 2A it even includes the words "shall not be infringed".

It is up to us on how far we let the government keep overstepping it's boundaries.

you stated

Sylvia Plath wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

It is up to us on how far we let the government keep overstepping it's boundaries.

I agree.

You responded to svg's post with no objections and said you agree, to at least part of it.  Your most recent post sounds like a contradiction.

So, I must ask:  Do the words in the Constitution have an absolute meaning, or is everything written there open to the whims of those hired to interpret??

+1

The role of the courts, ie, the Supreme Court, is to interpret LAWS according to the Constitution. For a long time now liberal activist judges have been doing exactly the opposite, interpreting the Constitution in order to legitimize laws. I believe the technical phrase is, "they have it bass-ackwards"

 

[ShooterMcGavin]

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

+1

The role of the courts, ie, the Supreme Court, is to interpret LAWS according to the Constitution. For a long time now liberal activist judges have been doing exactly the opposite, interpreting the Constitution in order to legitimize laws. I believe the technical phrase is, "they have it bass-ackwards"

Yes! I think we have a winning answer, regarding the interpretability of the Constitution. Thank you Metalhead!

When the judges have been give the question "do these laws fall under the definite outline of the Constitution?", they have answered the question (in their own opinion), "what does the Constitution mean?" Of course, many of the judges (with the same mindset of our current President) have no respect for the Constitution, and feel that it is just an outdated piece of paper.

 

[Aaron1124]

imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

+1

The role of the courts, ie, the Supreme Court, is to interpret LAWS according to the Constitution. For a long time now liberal activist judges have been doing exactly the opposite, interpreting the Constitution in order to legitimize laws. I believe the technical phrase is, "they have it bass-ackwards"

Yes! I think we have a winning answer, regarding the interpretability of the Constitution. Thank you Metalhead!

When the judges have been give the question "do these laws fall under the definite outline of the Constitution?", they have answered the question (in their own opinion), "what does the Constitution mean?" Of course, many of the judges (with the same mindset of our current President) have no respect for the Constitution, and feel that it is just an outdated piece of paper.

So what do we do in cases like this? How do we, the citizens, repel such unconstitutional laws?

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

imported post

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Yes, it can. The Constitution is interpreted, which means nearly anything can be deemed legal under the Constitution.

Hold on, Sylvia...

In this thread:sudden valley gunner wrote:

The constitution is not a living breathing document to be interpreted, this thinking is progressive/socialist/tyranny/elitist propaganda that is wrongly taught in our schools. These rights are not granted to us or given to us by the constitutions, it is a statement that these areour "unalienable" rights. Especially the 2A it even includes the words "shall not be infringed".

It is up to us on how far we let the government keep overstepping it's boundaries.

you stated

Sylvia Plath wrote:

sudden valley gunner wrote:

It is up to us on how far we let the government keep overstepping it's boundaries.

I agree.

You responded to svg's post with no objections and said you agree, to at least part of it. Your most recent post sounds like a contradiction.

So, I must ask: Do the words in the Constitution have an absolute meaning, or is everything written there open to the whims of those hired to interpret??

Both examples you have given are not a contradiction because one is dealing with government overstep, and the other deals with the purpose of the Constitution--they do not go hand-in-hand, the government and the Constitution.

The Constitution does NOT have an absolute meaning. The Constitution is open to interpretation...not at the "whims," but interpretation is based on the ideological stance of the majority of the 9. I am not saying that the Constitution is worthless, all I am saying is the Constitution is not absolute, in that, there is no clear purpose in the Constitution, only interpretive.

 

[Metalhead47]

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

+1

The role of the courts, ie, the Supreme Court, is to interpret LAWS according to the Constitution. For a long time now liberal activist judges have been doing exactly the opposite, interpreting the Constitution in order to legitimize laws. I believe the technical phrase is, "they have it bass-ackwards"

Yes! I think we have a winning answer, regarding the interpretability of the Constitution. Thank you Metalhead!

When the judges have been give the question "do these laws fall under the definite outline of the Constitution?", they have answered the question (in their own opinion), "what does the Constitution mean?" Of course, many of the judges (with the same mindset of our current President) have no respect for the Constitution, and feel that it is just an outdated piece of paper.

So what do we do in cases like this? How do we, the citizens, repel such unconstitutional laws?

"Too late for words, too soon to start shooting" :uhoh:

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Aaron1124 wrote:

ShooterMcGavin wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

+1

The role of the courts, ie, the Supreme Court, is to interpret LAWS according to the Constitution. For a long time now liberal activist judges have been doing exactly the opposite, interpreting the Constitution in order to legitimize laws. I believe the technical phrase is, "they have it bass-ackwards"

Yes! I think we have a winning answer, regarding the interpretability of the Constitution. Thank you Metalhead!

When the judges have been give the question "do these laws fall under the definite outline of the Constitution?", they have answered the question (in their own opinion), "what does the Constitution mean?" Of course, many of the judges (with the same mindset of our current President) have no respect for the Constitution, and feel that it is just an outdated piece of paper.

So what do we do in cases like this? How do we, the citizens, repel such unconstitutional laws?

Great question.

It is an eternal struggle. A struggle of the body politic to have the right congressman, the right senator, the right president. The latter two participate in electing to the bench of SCOTUS judges who understand their job.

 

[amlevin]

imported post

Do I understand that the main sentiment in this thread is "any law that prevents firearm ownership or prohibits a manner of carry is unconstitutional??"

If this is the case than how about those laws that prohibit felons, those adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, and those who are under restraining order for domestic violence, from possessing firearms. Should we do away with them as well? Let EVERYONE have a firearm, regardless of his penchant for criminal acts?

I believe that this is why the courts have allowed reasonable restrictions, among them the right of States to require CPL's as well as restrict areas where a firearm can be carried.

Let's face it, the Constitution and Bill of Rights only says what the Supreme Court ultimately says it does. All the more reason that we, as citizens should pay more attention to who gets elected to Congress, especially the Senate, and the office of President. THEY are the ones that place Supreme Court Justices in the seats they hold for life. Those who are appointed will reflect the politics and policies of the fools that were elected by those WHO ACTUALLY VOTED, not those who just complained.

 

[Metalhead47]

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Both examples you have given are not a contradiction because one is dealing with government overstep, and the other deals with the purpose of the Constitution--they do not go hand-in-hand, the government and the Constitution.

The Constitution does NOT have an absolute meaning. The Constitution is open to interpretation...not at the "whims," but interpretation is based on the ideological stance of the majority of the 9. I am not saying that the Constitution is worthless, all I am saying is the Constitution is not absolute, in that, there is no clear purpose in the Constitution, only interpretive.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

The Constitution DOES have an absolute meaning!! Read it! Read the words! Words have meaning! Very precise meanings that have been recorded by people Merriam & Webster! Of course the Constitution and the government go hand in hand, the Constitution is there to limit the government! It is there to control it, to keep it in check, to keep it from overstepping its bounds in the first place! The Constitution does not grant US rights, it PROTECTS our rights from government encroachment! No clear purpose?? Seriously, have you read this thing? The clear purpose is stated right there in the preamble.

This is a REPUBLIC! It is NOT a democracy! The majority cannot simply do whatever they want just because they have a majority! That's WHY we have laws, like the Constitution, to keep the tyranny of the "majority" in check! I know that word gets thrown around alot on here, but that's what ideologies like yours have been pushing us towards. Tyranny! That's exactly what happened in Germany in the 1930's. The majority party figured they'd just "interpret" the laws to mean what they want.

Rights are absolute Sylvia! Whether there is a constitution there to protect them or not, they still exist! Your right to defend yourself is ABSOLUTE! No majority can take that away with a few votes. That right does not exist because of the Constitution, the Constitution exists because of that right! To protect it from just the sort of government overstepping you seem ok with!







Ok I think the exclamation key on my keyboard just broke, I'll stop now. :uhoh:

 

[Metalhead47]

imported post

amlevin wrote:

Do I understand that the main sentiment in this thread is "any law that prevents firearm ownership or prohibits a manner of carry is unconstitutional??"

If this is the case than how about those laws that prohibit felons, those adjudicated to be mentally incompetent, and those who are under restraining order for domestic violence, from possessing firearms. Should we do away with them as well? Let EVERYONE have a firearm, regardless of his penchant for criminal acts?

Those people you mention have already had some or all of their rights rescinded, temporarily or permanently, by due process of law. That's the difference.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

+1

The role of the courts, ie, the Supreme Court, is to interpret LAWS according to the Constitution. For a long time now liberal activist judges have been doing exactly the opposite, interpreting the Constitution in order to legitimize laws. I believe the technical phrase is, "they have it bass-ackwards"

Yes the purpose of the court is to interpret the Constitutionality of laws per the Constitution.

The bump in the road is the interpretation of the intent of the Constitution. "Liberal activist Judges" are relative--deemed liberal and activist if the individual making the assertion does not agree with the interpretation of the Constitution or the ruled constitutionality of laws that are brought before The Supreme Court Of The United States.

I agree that there is government overreach, whether that is Constitutional or not is up to SCOTUS to rule. I also believe that we have become a police state and it is only going to get worse.

Karl Marx (I believe it was him) may have had it right that following Capitalism is Socialism then Communism. American's think that we could never get to that point, of Socialism or Communism--we have been swimming in Socialism for a very long time. Capitalism is going to collapse. Where does that leave gun owners?--hopefully we have a greater will to retain our fundamental right to preserve life and limb when the Fed's come knocking on our door (they will not literally, but will be rather persuasive through fear).

Both the right and left have used misinformation and fear to illicit an emotional response, and it works, unfortunately. All around us our infastructure is collapsing because we do not invest in it. The rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. I hope I am wrong, America is going to implode. Capitalism in America is being laid to rest--as I said, I hope I am wrong, but I do not think that I am.

I know--I am a bummer

 

[gogodawgs]

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

<snip>

The rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. I hope I am wrong, America is going to implode. Capitalism in America is being laid to rest--as I said, I hope I am wrong, but I do not think that I am.

'the poor poorer'

This is untrue, the poor in America have become richer, they have more materialistic things now than ever before, food is more plentiful and less expensive than ever before.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

imported post

Metalhead47 wrote:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

The Constitution DOES have an absolute meaning!! Read it! Read the words! Words have meaning! Very precise meanings that have been recorded by people Merriam & Webster! Of course the Constitution and the government go hand in hand, the Constitution is there to limit the government! It is there to control it, to keep it in check, to keep it from overstepping its bounds in the first place! The Constitution does not grant US rights, it PROTECTS our rights from government encroachment! No clear purpose?? Seriously, have you read this thing? The clear purpose is stated right there in the preamble.

This is a REPUBLIC! It is NOT a democracy! The majority cannot simply do whatever they want just because they have a majority! That's WHY we have laws, like the Constitution, to keep the tyranny of the "majority" in check! I know that word gets thrown around alot on here, but that's what ideologies like yours have been pushing us towards. Tyranny! That's exactly what happened in Germany in the 1930's. The majority party figured they'd just "interpret" the laws to mean what they want.

Rights are absolute Sylvia! Whether there is a constitution there to protect them or not, they still exist! Your right to defend yourself is ABSOLUTE! No majority can take that away with a few votes. That right does not exist because of the Constitution, the Constitution exists because of that right! To protect it from just the sort of government overstepping you seem ok with!







Ok I think the exclamation key on my keyboard just broke, I'll stop now. :uhoh:

Yes, the words of the Constitution have meaning. I have read(e) the Constitution, it is written in English.

Fundamental rights are absolute--Constitutional rights are not. I never said that we do not have fundamental rights, I have stated clearly in prior posts that we have fundamental rights. The Constitution exists because a group of people felt it would be best to put fundamental rights down on paper, but that does not make them any more fundamental than they already were.

I have a question...what good is the Constitution? Do we really all need to write down on a piece of paper what are fundamental rights for all human's? I mean, by your own statement, the Constitution is not applied as intended anyhow. What good is a document of fundamental rights if the document is misinterpreted by liberals, conservatives, all financed by big business.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

imported post

gogodawgs wrote:

Sylvia Plath wrote:

<snip>

The rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. I hope I am wrong, America is going to implode. Capitalism in America is being laid to rest--as I said, I hope I am wrong, but I do not think that I am.

'the poor poorer'

This is untrue, the poor in America have become richer, they have more materialistic things now than ever before, food is more plentiful and less expensive than ever before.

Sure. I went to the store the other day and bought a head of lettuce for nearly two bucks...ten years ago it was eighty-nine cents. Fuel prices have nearly tripled int he past ten years. Home prices have skyrocketed.

You are right, things are getting less expensive. Damn materialistic things like lettuce and petro, right? Let's get real here, it is tough to make ends meet these days, even with dual-income households.

Kind of makes me wonder what you think poor is, what you think middle class is.

 

[Metalhead47]

imported post

Sylvia Plath wrote:

Metalhead47 wrote:

+1

The role of the courts, ie, the Supreme Court, is to interpret LAWS according to the Constitution. For a long time now liberal activist judges have been doing exactly the opposite, interpreting the Constitution in order to legitimize laws. I believe the technical phrase is, "they have it bass-ackwards"

Yes the purpose of the court is to interpret the Constitutionality of laws per the Constitution.

The bump in the road is the interpretation of the intent of the Constitution. "Liberal activist Judges" are relative--deemed liberal and activist if the individual making the assertion does not agree with the interpretation of the Constitution or the ruled constitutionality of laws that are brought before The Supreme Court Of The United States.

I agree that there is government overreach, whether that is Constitutional or not is up to SCOTUS to rule. I also believe that we have become a police state and it is only going to get worse.

Karl Marx (I believe it was him) may have had it right that following Capitalism is Socialism then Communism. American's think that we could never get to that point, of Socialism or Communism--we have been swimming in Socialism for a very long time. Capitalism is going to collapse. Where does that leave gun owners?--hopefully we have a greater will to retain our fundamental right to preserve life and limb when the Fed's come knocking on our door (they will not literally, but will be rather persuasive through fear).

Both the right and left have used misinformation and fear to illicit an emotional response, and it works, unfortunately. All around us our infastructure is collapsing because we do not invest in it. The rich are becoming richer and the poor poorer. I hope I am wrong, America is going to implode. Capitalism in America is being laid to rest--as I said, I hope I am wrong, but I do not think that I am.

I know--I am a bummer

Now I'll agree with you that a collapse is not only possible but likely, but it won't be Capitalism. It might be a Government or a Nation, but capitalism can't really collapse. It can go away for a while, even a long while, but not collapse. It, like freedom, is the default state of humanity. Put 100 people on a deserted island with no supplies but plenty of resources, and pretty soon they'll be bartering with each other in what is pure capitalism.

And we here in America have something rather unique. We're the only nation in history (at least modern history), to buy our own freedom with our own blood, AND do a better-than-historical-average job of maintaining that freedom. I think in any collapse that give Americans a unique advantage.