Requirement to apply for LTCH is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[rambone]

I hate to say I actually disagree. But not for the reasons you might expect.

The Constitution applies primarily to the Federal Government, and what it is not allowed to do. It does not apply to a State's right to enact laws of it's own to govern the people in that state.

So... basically any gun control law would be fine/constitutional as long as it was passed by a state congress? If requiring a permission slip is not an infringement, I don't know is. That logic can be used to defend any & every gun control law passed by states, including Illinois-style carry laws.

If what you say is true, what is to stop a state from outlawing certain speech or religion?

Every state must follow the national and state constitutions. State's powers are certainly trampled and ignored, but they do not have the authority to break the U.S. Constitution or their own.

 

[SavageEagle]

So... basically any gun control law would be fine/constitutional as long as it was passed by a state congress? If requiring a permission slip is not an infringement, I don't know is. That logic can be used to defend any & every gun control law passed by states, including Illinois-style carry laws.

If what you say is true, what is to stop a state from outlawing certain speech or religion?

Every state must follow the national and state constitutions. State's powers are certainly trampled and ignored, but they do not have the authority to break the U.S. Constitution or their own.

The Bill of Rights might be restrictions on the Federal Government, but they are Rights derived from our Creator. I would go into it further, but such talk has been effectively banned here.

 

[mrjarrell]

So... basically any gun control law would be fine/constitutional as long as it was passed by a state congress? If requiring a permission slip is not an infringement, I don't know is. That logic can be used to defend any & every gun control law passed by states, including Illinois-style carry laws.

If what you say is true, what is to stop a state from outlawing certain speech or religion?

Every state must follow the national and state constitutions. State's powers are certainly trampled and ignored, but they do not have the authority to break the U.S. Constitution or their own.

The 14th Amendment imposes the same limitations on states as the feds. I am a firm believer in the use or lose it philosophy here. Incorporate all the BoR under the 14th. In the meantime, the pols just need to read and follow the Indiana Constitution. It's clear on the matter and doesn't mention permits at all.

 

[MTC]

Scare tactics...

“They” have been stacking the courts for two hundred years. & by “they” I mean BOTH (or the several) political factions that have been in power. It looks to me like both sides (or neither side) look like they have been equally successful at the so-called “stacking” since there is an even split between liberal & conservative justices with one swing vote.

And the bad news is that even the Thomas’ & Scalia’s of the court aren’t infallible. They just fail in different ways. There have been plenty of rulings with a “liberal” majority that have upheld & strengthened other Constitutional rights that would have been set back if the “conservative” minority would have otherwise prevailed.

If you would put aside for a moment your hypersensitivity and seeming obsession with political labels (or being labeled), and read the post in its entirety you would see that there is nothing scare tactic about it. It is a viewpoint shared as background to answer the question of why a general or particular course of action is suggested once a conclusion has been reached. The names were used for the purpose of example. That's not the point. Anyone, regardless of political leanings, should be able to grasp this.

If you don’t want a SCOTUS to decide the Constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislature & approved by the governor/president, who do you propose should do it then?

You're misrepresenting what I've posted. Not trying to take SCOTUS' job, but to suggest an alternative on this particular issue to not only restore a Right, but to break people of the habit of always taking such matters to court. I've already mentioned it in several threads, including this one. There is no way you cannot have seen it. We seem to be in agreement on the main point (The Question), however, and that's where it counts. One more time, to recap and answer your question as it pertains to this thread topic:

To whom was the question directed? The People
What was the question in regard to? The Right of The People
Whose Right(s) are we talking about? The People
Are these the same 'People' mentioned repeatedly in the Indiana and United States Constitutions? Why, yes. I believe so.
Who might be more concerned with, or have a greater interest in upholding and defending the Rights of the People? umm...The People?

From my thread a few months ago:

Instead of rolling the dice on an expensive court case or drawing straws to see who will risk a blot on his record by being the test case, a more obvious and appropriate choice would be to seek redress through one's elected representatives in the legislature. A tall order and not easily accomplished, but if it were decided by enough of the people that a given statute is unconstitutional, unjust, or unwanted, then it can be addressed by repeal, replacement, or striking of sections from the code.

From this thread:

If the people decide that a given statute is unconstitutional, unjust, or unwanted, the proper remedy is to have the offending statute(s) repealed or stricken from the code by their elected representatives in the legislature. No need to amend the Constitution.

 

[cartmanfan15]

So if this is all so obvious, why is it such an issue? Every day lawmakers are allowed to disregard the Constitution and it is allowed to continue. Are we saying we should just dismantle the government entirely because it is to corrupt and beyond saving by anti-gun control individuals like many of the members of this site?

 

[SavageEagle]

So if this is all so obvious, why is it such an issue? Every day lawmakers are allowed to disregard the Constitution and it is allowed to continue. Are we saying we should just dismantle the government entirely because it is to corrupt and beyond saving by anti-gun control individuals like many of the members of this site?

at the first question. It's an issue because MOST of us believe in the Constitution and true freedom.

No one's really advocating dismantling the government. We want it to shrink to its Constitutionally mandated authority, no more, no less. Shrink. Not dismantle. And it's not just about gun control. There's way to many issues for me to list. But most of us realize that Freedom, while still sparking in America, is a flame that's a breath from being put out.

 

[cartmanfan15]

If that is true, then we must look at what is causing this. To quote Team America (lol), "Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me." If we were to try and gain back this full ability to exercise our Constitutional rights, as we should be allowed to, would we not just have to give up some other rights? We should not have to concede to somewhat socialist ideals just to regain a small measure more of our constitutional rights. The question then becomes should we be happy with where we are rather than continue to lose constitutional rights? If we truly wish to regain our full 2A rights it seems that whoever is in a position to make that happen would require some other concession, one that many are not willing to give.

 

[finity]

Oh, geez. You justified your opinion with personal beliefs, not universal standards of liberty. Joe assumed the same justification with a different liberty to illustrate the utter stupidity of using personal beliefs as universal justifications. Whether or not he personally believes it is kinda moot. The fact that you're all up in arms (bad pun, sorry) over it kinda proves his point too.

Whether one personally believes in the priciples on which the Bill of Rights was shaped is never "moot". The "universal standard of liberty" I was using is the Bill of Rights. If you don't fully uphold that standard at all times for all people whether you agree with them or not (or even if they are American citizens or not) then you are by definition not upholding the "universal standard of liberty".

If someone here says that they think the 2A doesn't mean what "we" say that it means, or would allow for "reasonable" regulations, etc, then they are vehemently labeled as "anti-gun", "socialist" Anti-Constitutionalists.

But if someone here suggests that they think that "leftists" shouldn't have 1A rights or be able to hold office because it is what many (most?) here would also agree with, that's OK.

I say there is no difference between the two. Both people are failing to fully "support & defend" the Constitutional principles that our country is founded on. If your going to take one to task then you should take both to task for their anti-Constitutional views. To do otherwise is, as I said, hypocrisy.

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is not just some trivial expression. It is just as important as "from my cold dead hands" (at least to me).

So would you qualify for this label or not based on the text in red?

Ummm... no.

I don't believe in abridging others gun-rights.

You can read any post of mine from anywhere on this site. I have been very consistent (as much as possible) in my support for gun rights. More so than even others who self-label as "conservative".

That same can't be said for Joe on his 1A views where the so-called "leftists" are concerned (which I THINK is code for people who don't believe exactly as he does - correct me with evidence if I'm wrong); well, except for the consistency part.

Now, if I am wrong on the question then please correct me.

<Reagan>There you go again.</Reagan> You really should have your sarcasm detector checked out. If it's not out-right broken, it's seriously mis-calibrated.

I think the saying goes "in all humor there is some truth". You can joke about it but I think we all know that you feel there is a truth there. Oh wait you even "joked" about that in your post. HMMM...

If you would put aside for a moment your hypersensitivity and seeming obsession with political labels (or being labeled),

I'M not the one who constantly brings up politics in these threads. I just respond to the hyperbole & exageration initially posted by others who ARE fixated on maligning others with (often-times) half-truths or out-right lies.

and read the post in its entirety you would see that there is nothing scare tactic about it. It is a viewpoint shared as background to answer the question of why a general or particular course of action is suggested once a conclusion has been reached. The names were used for the purpose of example. That's not the point. Anyone, regardless of political leanings, should be able to grasp this.

Oh please. Let's not try to play games here. You know EXACTLY what was said & WHY it was said. You know as well as I that the names used in your post were perfectly intentional.

Anyone who can read your posts would understand that.

As I said, the "Charles Shumers" have been no more successful at "packing and stacking the courts with like-minded jurists for decades" than have the "John Boehners".

Also the Breyer's & Ginsburg's are no more inherently evil or anti-Constitutional than the Thomas' & Scalia's. They just put emphasis on different aspects of it. One's you may not agree with but other's do.

You're misrepresenting what I've posted. Not trying to take SCOTUS' job, but to suggest an alternative on this particular issue to not only restore a Right, but to break people of the habit of always taking such matters to court.

No one is suggesting that there is no other alternative to fixing ANY legal issue, this one or any others. Just because the SCOTUS finds a law Constitutional doesn't mean that we (as in "the people") have no other recourse. We can ALWAYS petition our government to repeal or amend the law more to our (collective) liking. If they don't then we can always (collectively) elect those that will.

The great benefit of our system is when a law is found to be unConstitutional. At that point the system has worked. The courts in general, & SCOTUS in particular, are in a unique position to make those decisions. The only time that "we the people" could have direct control over a particular issue or law is through force of arms. Otherwise, we have indirect control as stated before by petition & election. I don't know about you but I don't want to live in a country that solves all of it's Constitutional issues at the the barrel end of a rifle. We already have too many of those countries around.

Your suggestions in your other posts you referenced are good as far as they go but you then get to the question "what happens in the mean time if the legislature (who is elected by a majority of the people) refuse to do anything because the majority wants what the legislature has enacted?"

Let me rephrase using an example (no I do not promote this idea ):

Let's say that a legislature was elected that has been mandated by the majority that elected them to pass a law that stated that women of Irish descent between the ages of 30 & 40 were not allowed to write for a newspaper.

Now as you can imagine a 35 year old Irish-American woman journalist would be fairly upset about that law. That person (or for that matter every person who falls into that category) could petition the government literally forever & never get that law changed as long as the majority still held the same power to elect representatives to do their bidding.

Now what? The minority would be forever set upon by the majority, at least until the minority could somehow become the majority or convince the majority it would be in its best interest to change the law.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to protect the most basic human rights from the tyranny of the majority.

The courts are the best place to enforce that purpose. You need an institution who is not beholden to any other group for their existence & serves at no particular persons/groups pleasure. That is EXACTLY why we have three branches of government & a (theoretical) balance of power between them.

It's not always perfect but it beats the heck out of rioting in the streets & an active rebellion somewhere in the country every Thursday night at 9 pm.

So if this is all so obvious, why is it such an issue? Every day lawmakers are allowed to disregard the Constitution and it is allowed to continue.

Just because it is allowed on some level doesn't justify them taking advantage of us on EVERY LEVEL & at ALL TIMES.

Are we saying we should just dismantle the government entirely because it is to corrupt and beyond saving by anti-gun control individuals like many of the members of this site?

No. Most normal, rational people aren't suggesting armed rebellion (yet). However you should NEVER remove that option from the table by allowing the government to take away the means of instituting a NEW government should the old government become hopelessly corrupt. The ONLY way that any people have to fight against a tyrannical regime is through force of arms. That's why those types of governments throughout history have disarmed their people. That's why the Founders of this country made sure (to the best of their ability) that would never happen here.

You need to read some quotes by many of the Founders on the meaning of the Second Amendment & their views on arms for private citizens.

No, they weren't just for hunting. Or even just self-defense.

 

[SavageEagle]

If that is true, then we must look at what is causing this. To quote Team America (lol), "Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me." If we were to try and gain back this full ability to exercise our Constitutional rights, as we should be allowed to, would we not just have to give up some other rights? We should not have to concede to somewhat socialist ideals just to regain a small measure more of our constitutional rights. The question then becomes should we be happy with where we are rather than continue to lose constitutional rights? If we truly wish to regain our full 2A rights it seems that whoever is in a position to make that happen would require some other concession, one that many are not willing to give.

What rights would we have to give up? The Socialist Ideals are not rights. We don't have a Right to health care. We don't have a right to a home. We don't have a right to a job. We don't have a right to wealth.

Having absolute freedom with only a government in place to defend, negotiate trade and treaty, and settle disputes that cannot be handled at the local level would mean the one thing welfare junkies hate.

Being self-sufficient. Responsible/Accountable for our own actions. Being charitable ON OUR OWN ACCORD.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. The Israelite People had the perfect system set up until they clamored and clamored for a King. They rejected their one true King for a tyrant.

Sorry, but it had to be said.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

That same can't be said for Joe on his 1A views where the so-called "leftists" are concerned (which I THINK is code for people who don't believe exactly as he does - correct me with evidence if I'm wrong); well, except for the consistency part.
snip.

It has been explained to you repeatedly what the intent of that post was, just on the off chance you were too dense to comprehend it. Despite the repeated explanations, you continue to lie about it in an attempt to make political points. Such a tactic is a favorite of the left, and serves well to demonstrate how morally bankrupt they are.

 

[cartmanfan15]

Yet I do feel like many people on here would be much happier to rush the streets armed to the teeth to defend their rights. We have a legislative system for a reason. So what are we supposed to be suggesting? Are we going to replace everyone in government? Seems there should be enough politicians in place that hold these same ideals or similar ones to at least filibuster or keep certain laws from being passed.

 

[SavageEagle]

Yet I do feel like many people on here would be much happier to rush the streets armed to the teeth to defend their rights. We have a legislative system for a reason. So what are we supposed to be suggesting? Are we going to replace everyone in government? Seems there should be enough politicians in place that hold these same ideals or similar ones to at least filibuster or keep certain laws from being passed.

Yep. You keep voting for good people and let me know how that works out for you.

Oh, wait, for the last 10 years I personally have been trying this to no avail. Most members on here longer than that. Sink-Burris is our only real choice for Liberty this year, but because no one thinks she has a snowball's chance, no one will vote for her. There have been bill after bill proposed in Congress to change things back, but no one's been willing to do the necessary things to end welfare and unConstitutional agencies.

So here we are, 200 years later, living with a tyrannical government and no one with the balls to do anything about it. After 2012, if things don't change dramatically back to our roots, we will have two options. Become slaves, or (one of the banned subjects).

If you can't grasp this you have already made your choice and that choice is not for Freedom.

 

[SavageEagle]

Ok, I should say 2013 because that's when they actually take office.

 

[MTC]

Oh please. Let's not try to play games here. You know EXACTLY what was said & WHY it was said. You know as well as I that the names used in your post were perfectly intentional.

It figures you would latch onto the names to play your usual game of moral equivalence. You like to hold yourself out as some sort of classical liberal, while many of your posts come off more like the other type, the mention of which sometimes causes you to become unhinged.
Anyone who can read your posts can clearly see that.

As far as the names...people can have their preferences or favorites, and that's not the point. Speculation about the likelihood of outcomes of cases will abound, and that's not the point. Though not owed, an explanation was given, and why.

As I said, the "Charles Shumers" have been no more successful at "packing and stacking the courts with like-minded jurists for decades" than have the "John Boehners".

Disagree, yet that's not the point.

Also the Breyer's & Ginsburg's are no more inherently evil or anti-Constitutional than the Thomas' & Scalia's. They just put emphasis on different aspects of it. One's you may not agree with but other's do.

Moral equivalence, and still that's not the point.

No one is suggesting that there is no other alternative to fixing ANY legal issue, this one or any others. Just because the SCOTUS finds a law Constitutional doesn't mean that we (as in "the people") have no other recourse. We can ALWAYS petition our government to repeal or amend the law more to our (collective) liking. If they don't then we can always (collectively) elect those that will.

More to the point, just a different way of expressing it. In other conversations and in postings I've seen, especially on this and related issues, some folks do act as if it is the sole prerogative of the courts.

...but you then get to the question "what happens in the mean time if the legislature (who is elected by a majority of the people) refuse to do anything because the majority wants what the legislature has enacted?

The tyranny of the majority argument - and it is a valid one - always comes up at this point. And so, in the meantime we are, as we have been for a while, in a sort of stasis with regard to gun statutes such as the topic of this thread, with a few adjustments here and there, but no major statutes repealed.

... at least until the minority could somehow become the majority or convince the majority it would be in its best interest to change the law.

Something like that, or exert such an influence on representatives that goals could be accomplished.

/snip/

Don't need a lecture on the Bill of Rights or balance of power. If someone wants to pursue a lawsuit as remedy for some grievance, then they can have at it. Don't know about you, but I don't have dumptruck loads of cash to spend on it, and although I'm told we have the best legal system money can buy, I probably wouldn't go that route even if I did, for reasons already given.

In keeping with this - got letters to write.

 

[finity]

So here we are, 200 years later, living with a tyrannical government...

You need to get out into the world more.

Or at least look up the real definition of the word "tyranny".

No matter what the "chicken littles" try to get people to believe we're not "there" yet. But it does play into their hands for gaining power.

 

[finity]

It has been explained to you repeatedly what the intent of that post was, just on the off chance you were too dense to comprehend it. Despite the repeated explanations, you continue to lie about it in an attempt to make political points. Such a tactic is a favorite of the left, and serves well to demonstrate how morally bankrupt they are.

Ok, I'll take you at your word that you don't really think what I wrote.

My apologies.

I will say, though, there were no "lies" as you call them. If anything they were a misjudgement of your intent based on past experience with no evidence to think otherwise.

When you use the words "I think" & "those that agree with me" without any qualifiers you have to expect that people will take you at your word then, as well.

 

[cartmanfan15]

I too agree with finity. I don't think we are there yet. It does seem that we are losing ground for gun rights, but I don't think we are at the point of a complete tyranny yet. But it does seem like there are some things that can be done. Seems like people are already getting the picture to an effect since all the new politicians are promoting the fact that they are proud gun owners or proud members of the NRA. Maybe there is a chance?

 

[SavageEagle]

You need to get out into the world more.

Or at least look up the real definition of the word "tyranny".

No matter what the "chicken littles" try to get people to believe we're not "there" yet. But it does play into their hands for gaining power.

I too agree with finity. I don't think we are there yet. It does seem that we are losing ground for gun rights, but I don't think we are at the point of a complete tyranny yet. But it does seem like there are some things that can be done. Seems like people are already getting the picture to an effect since all the new politicians are promoting the fact that they are proud gun owners or proud members of the NRA. Maybe there is a chance?

Not there yet huh? At what point for you two does it finally arrive?

I mean, cancel your LTCH, Driver's License, and change your tax forms to where you pay taxes yourself instead of automatically deducting them.

Then, OC your pistol into the nearest license branch while you hand them your drivers license. If you make it out of there not if handcuffs, drive down I70 at 90mph until you get to Terre Haute and come back to Indy. If you make it back without a speeding ticket and your vehicle still in your possession, stop paying taxes for a couple years.

When you get out of prison a felon with most of your rights stripped away, then come tell me about how free we all are.

 

[finity]

It figures you would latch onto the names to play your usual game of moral equivalence. You like to hold yourself out as some sort of classical liberal, while many of your posts come off more like the other type, the mention of which sometimes causes you to become unhinged.

Unhinged? UNHINGED!?!? WHAT DO YOU MEAN UNHINGED!?!?!?!

Sorry, just kidding...

I don't think there is a person alive who fits into one single political mold.

Do I think that some liberal ideas are valid? Yes or I wouldn't associate myself with them. Do I whole-heartedly agree with all of them? Not at all.

My only problem is the hyperbole & distortions. (i.e. see post above re:tyrannical government).

Disagree

look at the make-up of the court. It's pretty much split down the middle. How can you really reasonably disagree?

Moral equivalence, and still that's not the point.

It's not "moral equivalence". I'm not saying that it's OK for one group (the "Breyer & Ginsburg"s) to make bad decisions because the other one does (the "thomas & Scalia"s). I'm saying that you can't complain about the Breyers & Ginsburgs when the Thomas' & Scalia's make as bad or worse decisions that you intentionally overlook. It is hypocritical to froth over one group infringing a right that you believe in but then look the other way when the others infringe some rights that you seem to be OK with.

For the record I condemn the opinions that were put forth by the minority in the Heller & Mcdonald cases.

The tyranny of the majority argument - and it is a valid one - always comes up at this point. And so, in the meantime we are, as we have been for a while, in a sort of stasis with regard to gun statutes such as the topic of this thread, with a few adjustments here and there, but no major statutes repealed.

This argument shows, I think, just the opposite of what you are trying to suggest.

The reason why the gun laws have been so slow to change is because the people haven't been adamant about electing staunch pro-gun representatives. The "pro-2A" group hasn't been able to get the needed majority to overcome "reasonable gun laws" group. Just like in my example where the 30 - 40 yo irish women couldn't get the majority. Unfortunately the SCOTUS had not decided to hear a gun-rights case until now.

Now the legislatures have to change laws (like DC & Chicago) & more laws will be challenged because of the SCOTUS rulings. We the people had almost nothing to do with the direct action of the court aside from us exerting some influence to persuade them to hear the cases in the first place.

On a side note: It's interesting that the Republicans only made a big deal out of gun issues after the Democrats got into office. It's not like the Republicans voted to repeal any gun laws during their 6 years of complete control over Congress & the Executive. They had their chance to strengthen the 2A all they wanted but they didn't do a thing. Now they wave the flag & beat their chest & talk about their support for the 2A.

I'd call that hypocrisy.

 

[finity]

It does seem that we are losing ground for gun rights

You see that's exactly what "they" want you to think.

It seems to be working.

In fact the exact opposite is true.

There are more states that allow some form of carry & are shall isue than there has been in a long time. The AWB is gone & not coming back. We just had the Heller & Mcdonald cases which were a fairly large win for us. we have the Castle Doctrine in many states which will strengthen our rights when it comes to self-defense.

That's just a few of the things I can think of right off the top of my head.

Gun rights are stronger now than they have been in the last 75 years.

See, the sky really isn't falling, CL.