Doug Huffman
Banned
To start with, the 2A is not a civil right yet in the sense engendering protected classes protected from discrimination. Only the government is prohibited from censoring free speech. A private entity may.
-
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.
-
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.
Wisconsin stores that infringe upon our rights
- Thread starter protias
- Start date
- Status
IcrewUH60
Regular Member
So if I understand... government(s) can be held criminally/civilly responsible for BoR violations, but there is no such protection from private entities because "all Americans" protected under the 2A aren't a "protected class" yet? I know there are examples where businesses open to the public must comply with federal laws (protecting the disabled, anti discrimination laws and so on) but is that specifically because there are "laws" in place?
Doug Huffman
Banned
There are two separate issues.
1) The RKABA is not yet a 'civil right'.
2) Nothing prevents a private entity from censorship.
1) The RKABA is not yet a 'civil right'.
2) Nothing prevents a private entity from censorship.
tletourneau
Regular Member
MN's permit is a permit to carry not a conceal carry permit, a permit holder can do either.
IcrewUH60
Regular Member
Thanks Doug,
snipet from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights)
"Civil and political rights are a class of rights that protect individuals' freedom from unwarranted infringement by governments and private organizations, and ensure one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression.
Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, or sexual orientation; and individual rights such as the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement." [emphasis added]
it continues to read:
Civil and political rights were among the first to be recognized and codified. In many countries, they are constitutional rights and are included in a bill of rights or similar document.
I don't understand how other rights expressed in our constitution are labeled as "civil rights" but 2A is not. Why and how is this? Is it just the lacking of court cases? Help me understand what keeps 2A from being a civil right.
IcrewUH60
Regular Member
Doug Huffman
Banned
The Wiki article is good but general philosophical background. Find a similar one relating these questions to America.
Civil rights in America have a long and convoluted history. The 2A is the most recently incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment and the judicial process to make it a civil right that can't be 'discriminated' is not complete - and may not be.
I posted a national news article that complained about the limitations of the clause of the 14A that was used to get as far as the 2A has, the 'due process' clause versus the 'privileges or immunities' clause.
Civil rights in America have a long and convoluted history. The 2A is the most recently incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment and the judicial process to make it a civil right that can't be 'discriminated' is not complete - and may not be.
I posted a national news article that complained about the limitations of the clause of the 14A that was used to get as far as the 2A has, the 'due process' clause versus the 'privileges or immunities' clause.
bnhcomputing
Founder's Club Member
1. Yes, MN is a NO "right-to-carry" state, they are a "privilege-to-carry" state.
2. If a firearm is carried to "express" ones beliefs and/or thoughts, then wouldn't that be covered under the "expression" clause?
2. If a firearm is carried to "express" ones beliefs and/or thoughts, then wouldn't that be covered under the "expression" clause?
IcrewUH60
Regular Member
link please?
Doug Huffman
Banned
IcrewUH60
Regular Member
thanks again, that was a good read and it seems to confirm my original question. 2A has not yet been declared a civil right by the high court..... :banghead: Does this make it not so?
More importantly, and on topic here in WI is how the state constitution is viewed. We have Article 1 Section 25 (fundamental, but not absolute) Right to Keep and bear Arms. Is that not a civil right at the sovereign state level? We are sovereign as individuals first, then we are sovereign as states, then a sovereign country, in that order, no? So all civil liberties must originate with and for the individual and do not need to wait for a high court to label them in order for smaller political subdivisions to recognize that right... am I lost here or have "we" just lost our way and allowed the political powerhouses to play games with 2A?
Spartacus
Banned
Exactly. This thread is bare.
IcrewUH60
Regular Member
Can they violate them instead?
Spartacus
Banned
Traditionally the rights to personal property naturally predate any other right. Common law and Natural law dictate that you may control your own property as you see fit.
IcrewUH60
Regular Member
kindof my point exactly Spartacus. I respect private property rights completely. People work hard for that which they own and should be able to control it at their discretion. On the flip side, my life, my body, and my actions are my personal property, and I should be able to control/defend it as I see fit? This is the conundrum I see in banning self-defense weapons on private (open to the public) property. agreed? So, if by forcing them to allow me to open carry while on their property violates their natural laws protecting their private property, then at the same time their refusal to allow me to carry reciprocates that violation.
How do we get around this?
rotty
Regular Member
We may be " privilege to carry " but the part people seem to miss is we are a " shall issue " state. Without just cause, your permit can not be refused. Most of the time the precursors for not being able to carry under " right to carry " are the same as those circumstances where you would be denied the " shall issue " permit.
So it really is a form of right to carry if you are willing to pay the 100 bucks and fill out the paperwork. Bass Akwards I know .. but we all work with what we've got.
IcrewUH60
Regular Member
MN citizens still have to ask, apply, pay for and pass "their" test before the state "shall issue". That makes it a privilege (like a driver's license) and not a right. I fear the same action in WI if CC gets passed...it seems to be the generic trade-off between the 2A anti's and supporters.
The "without just cause" statement is just that, just cause. All they have to do is move the goal line a few inches back every year to convince a few judges or juries what "just cause is" and that scares the hell out of me.
for example, you didn't pay your taxes, in full.... on time... that's like robbing the entire community...do we really want him/her going around armed?
Spartacus
Banned
By respecting the right that takes precedence. Property ownership came waaay before gun ownership.
IcrewUH60
Regular Member
agreed and disagreed. I'll explain by asking you to answer two questions first. Do we agree that my body is my private property? If so, then would we agree that I have a right to protect it and manage it the way I see fit, just as a store owner would protect and manage his private property?
If property ownership came before gun ownership - and that is the reason not carry on others' private property, then how do I protect my private property while on others' private property? Assuming of course that we are only talking about private property that is open to the public.
Doug Huffman
Banned
Too precise to be accurate. The right of self-defense should be compared to the right of ownership, which is not sovereignty!
- Status