Infringement vs. 'reasonable restrictions'

[renaissance_warrior]

Ok gang, now that we have full civil rights protection under color of law by the SCOTUS, what would constitute a 'civil rights violation' vis-a-vis a 'reasonable restriction' becoming infringement? Laws such as the ones that protect free speech, assembly, voting would appear to need a new set of standards to determine the different 'tests.'

Would a 5-day handgun delay be an infringement? Fingerprinting, registration, LEO signoffs, fees?

[Kyrottimus]

"A right delayed is a right denied. A right restricted is a right denied." - ?

[J308]

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

[V guy]

Only public militias are legal.

The court today clearly stated that under the 2nd amendment States have the right to arrest and imprison and disarm illegal militias or private armies who physically meet regularly, drill, and practice militia type activities.....you can only be an "Independent Operator".........oops I said a bad bad ting!!!!



This is quoted clearly in the decision....all you have to do is read it.....my god some of you guys are blind as bats

[Blood of Tyrants]

Originally posted by V guy
Only public militias are legal.

The court today clearly stated that under the 2nd amendment States have the right to arrest and imprison and disarm illegal militias or private armies who physically meet regularly, drill, and practice militia type activities.....you can only be an "Independent Operator".........oops I said a bad bad ting!!!!

I don't know WHAT you read today, but you didn't read Heller vs DC.

[Scott S]

The court didn't balk at licensing to have a firearm in one's own home in DC.

[Dirtfarmer]

Originally posted by Scott S
The court didn't balk at licensing to have a firearm in one's own home in DC.

As noted, (by the court), the petitioner found it would satisfy HIS complaint, and so it was explicitly not addressed.

I think that service in the militia may require soundness of mind, and conceivably being an upstanding citizen, This may require a check on fitness of duty, and certain protocols adopted to determine it.
I.e - possibly no felons, no mentally ill, conceivablyt no aliens, (though I think justice may preclude the latter, as to it's self protective nature...

Is such a situation conceivably abused in the future, or further proscriptions objectionable?
We yet have the courts and law to appeal.
Goodwill,
-Dirtfarmer

[republic]

If the power to tax (read regulate) is the power to destroy, then how can there be any tax on firearms ownership (beyond regular import duties if applicable)? I don't quite understand how the government is able to justify regulating personal action on private property that does not infringe on others' persons or property. I think you would be hard pressed to prove that arms present a situation of reckless endangerment or a clear and present danger when possessed by the citizenry.

Can a state be said to have a republican (in the constitutional sense) form of government if they do not permit the basic natural right of self defense? For what is the purpose of government if not to protect the lives and liberty of its citizens (at least theoretically)? I would contend that any state that restricts the possession of arms is in breach of its contract (see Lysander Spooner for clarification on the validity of such a concept) .

republic

[Dirtfarmer]

Originally posted by republic


Can a state be said to have a republican (in the constitutional sense) form of government if they do not permit the basic natural right of self defense? For what is the purpose of government if not to protect the lives and liberty of its citizens (at least theoretically)? I would contend that any state that restricts the possession of arms is in breach of its contract (see Lysander Spooner for clarification on the validity of such a concept) .

republic


I would agree, and thank God i do not have to live under such a government.

Goodwill,
-Dirtfarmer

[fastfreddy]

Originally posted by Blood of Tyrants


I don't know WHAT you read today, but you didn't read Heller vs DC.

Yeah, that was in Scalia's opinion.

[tim503]

Originally posted by fastfreddy


Yeah, that was in Scalia's opinion.

(Note: if you're being sarcastic in saying that, please disregard the below reply)

Bullshit.

Here's the friggin' link to the whole decision. If that's there, you just feel free to post it up to prove it.

http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

Hop to it, oh brilliant ones. It's gonna be a hard task for you to find something that isn't there, though. :rolleyes:

[tim503]

Restriction = Infringement.

Period.

[juanni]

Originally posted by tim503


(Note: if you're being sarcastic in saying that, please disregard the below reply)

Bullshit.

Here's the friggin' link to the whole decision. If that's there, you just feel free to post it up to prove it.

http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

Hop to it, oh brilliant ones. It's gonna be a hard task for you to find something that isn't there, though. :rolleyes:

Jeez try being a little civil, it was just issued today and is 157 pages. :sad:


.................juanni

[fastfreddy]

Originally posted by tim503


(Note: if you're being sarcastic in saying that, please disregard the below reply)

Bullshit.

Here's the friggin' link to the whole decision. If that's there, you just feel free to post it up to prove it.

http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

Hop to it, oh brilliant ones. It's gonna be a hard task for you to find something that isn't there, though. :rolleyes:

I read the entire majority decision. (Didn't read the loser's whining). It DID say that. I suggest you re-read it. At least two of us saw it. I don't feel like reading it again right now.

[juanni]

Originally posted by tim503


(Note: if you're being sarcastic in saying that, please disregard the below reply)

Bullshit.

Here's the friggin' link to the whole decision. If that's there, you just feel free to post it up to prove it.

http://dcguncase.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

Hop to it, oh brilliant ones. It's gonna be a hard task for you to find something that isn't there, though. :rolleyes:

Page 48, 1st paragraph perhaps.
I haven't read it all yet.


................juanni

[V guy]

That reference to the illegality of private armies and private militias is in the decision....only public militias are legal...all states have the right and duty to arrest any private militias or armies under the 2nd amendment...read the decision carefully.


I'm afraid that some of you guys either can't read, comprehend or are as blind as bats.

[shlomo]

As requested:

'Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), held that the
right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that
forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and
towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. '

I read this as relatively innocuous, and recognizing the right of states to prohibit such acts, and not the FedGov. Whether states have an interest in prohibiting such behavior for whatever reason is certainly open to debate, but if the right to prohibit it exists, it seems to me to be a state's right.

[jerrymrc]

Originally posted by Dirtfarmer



I would agree, and thank God i do not have to live under such a government.

Goodwill,
-Dirtfarmer

Holy s#it!!! after two years you show your face again! Hope you post a little more.:beer: ;)

[juanni]

Originally posted by shlomo
As requested:

'Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), held that the
right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that
forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and
towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. '



Yep, that is the 1st para from page 48.

Think it is time for an apology. :smile:


................juanni

[Dirtfarmer]

Originally posted by jerrymrc


Holy s#it!!! after two years you show your face again! Hope you post a little more.:beer: ;)

"tis good to be remembered " flatt & scruggs

no seriously, My apologies some time..., some truly sorry years in here that I haven't quite gotten over...
Today will be remembered well, though.
Thanks Jerry...
Goodwill,
- Matt (dirtfarmer)

[prosecond]

Originally posted by jerrymrc


Holy s#it!!! after two years you show your face again! Hope you post a little more.:beer: ;)

I noticed this too. It has been a long time since I have seen Dirtfarmer post.

[Farmer from Hell]

Hey DF from another oldie turned lurker.

FfH

[Firestarter]

'Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), held that the
right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that
forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and
towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. '

Well hell, just take it outside the boundaries or limits of any city or town and drill and parade to your hearts content!

And don't make claims about being a military organization.

How about "Rhodesian re-enactors" for a group?. :tongue:

[fastfreddy]

Originally posted by Firestarter

How about "Rhodesian re-enactors" for a group?. :tongue:

Good ole American ingenuity is alive and well!

[brownknees]

Originally posted by Firestarter
'Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), held that the
right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that
forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and
towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. '

Well hell, just take it outside the boundaries or limits of any city or town and drill and parade to your hearts content!

And don't make claims about being a military organization.

How about "Rhodesian re-enactors" for a group?. :tongue:

Sounds like "Fugwit's Irregulars":uhoh: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[L Haney]

Originally posted by Firestarter
'Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), held that the
right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that
forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and
towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. '

Well hell, just take it outside the boundaries or limits of any city or town and drill and parade to your hearts content!

And don't make claims about being a military organization.

How about "Rhodesian re-enactors" for a group?. :tongue:

Ok then, How about "Blackwater Boosters Club"? :cool:

[brunop]

Originally posted by Firestarter
'Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), held that the
right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that
forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military
organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and
towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. '

Well hell, just take it outside the boundaries or limits of any city or town and drill and parade to your hearts content!

And don't make claims about being a military organization.

How about "Rhodesian re-enactors" for a group?. :tongue:

Man, is that a good idea, or what?! One chapter per state, I hope.

Peace.

[G1user]

Originally posted by renaissance_warrior
Ok gang, now that we have full civil rights protection under color of law by the SCOTUS, what would constitute a 'civil rights violation' vis-a-vis a 'reasonable restriction' becoming infringement? ....

Looks pretty clear to me that according to the PLEO mindset, the only official "right" you have is to "remain silent". Anything else is speculation at best.

That has not changed.
The authorities will continue to regard legitimate gun owners as criminals--their "only the police can have guns" mindset will still be the rule, not the exception.

All the Heller decision means in practical terms is that in COURT, you will now have "standing" (after the fact) to defend yourself--as an accused CRIMINAL--whereas before Heller, you may or may NOT have had any "standing" as the accused.
I am still skeptical that ALL judges will now RESPECT that "standing" however, so you can expect to still have to PAY a lawyer to defend you in court....

It will now be a series of never-ending fights at state and local level to prevail against the "only the police can have guns" mindset.
The simple fact is that they can and will CONTINUE to violate the civil liberties of gun owners under color of law, and it is up to the individual to fight back.

if you loose that fight, it means loss of piles of cash, or even prison;
if you win that fight, you MIGHT get a settlement check, and the real offender (government agent) will never have to admit culpability....

Only when we start getting a few genuine CONVICTIONS of these professional government agents for "violations of civil liberty under color of law" IN EACH STATE will anything actually change for the better....

[Azrial]

Originally posted by G1user
Looks pretty clear to me that according to the PLEO mindset, the only official "right" you have is to "remain silent". Anything else is speculation at best.

That has not changed.
The authorities will continue to regard legitimate gun owners as criminals--their "only the police can have guns" mindset will still be the rule, not the exception.....
The "police" do not make law in the United States. I would think that this is obvious.

[RG Coburn]

Originally posted by Azrial

The "police" do not make law in the United States. I would think that this is obvious.
Perhaps...but far too often they enforce laws that are blatantly un-Constitutional,thereby becoming just as bad as the folks who wrote it.

[G1user]

Originally posted by Azrial

The "police" do not make law in the United States. I would think that this is obvious.

Also "obvious":
The false perception of being somehow magically blessed with "full civil rights protection" is in fact utterly irrelevant when dealing with real-world authorities routinely operating under the mandate of "submit or die", with zero regard for the keeping and bearing of arms qualifying as a bona fide "civil right" (or more correctly "civil liberty" as codified by law).

The cold hard fact is that the only rights you have are those rights you are willing, able and ready to fight for.

The fact is that civil authorities (AND their PLEO enforcers) are quite content to use ANY degree of force to prove their point, so unless you are willing to be killed fighting for your "rights", then you do not HAVE any rights......beyond that of remaining silent, and perhaps the right to submit to forced compliance.

On the other hand, "rights", the "law", and whomsoever it was who MADE that "law", are in fact irrelevent if you are dead, so there ya have it.