Posted on 04/05/2020 5:57:17 AM PDT by marktwain
Does “Shall not be Infringed” mean prisoners cannot be disarmed in jail or prison? . . . . . . . .
_________________________________________________________
What silliness:
Prisoners have lost, at least for a time, their constitutional rights.
People in Mental institutions are in a similar situation and have either voluntarily given up their rights but as they are mostly in private institutions the private property has the right to limit weapons rights, it is the Federal (and extended to the states) that has no right to limit weapons rights not private citizens. If I say no guns in my house that is my right.
As far as 18 year olds are concerned, you do not have full
constitutional rights until you reach the age of majority, in most states 18 years old.
The absolutely silly argument about yelling fire in an auditorium has no place here. Weapons are allowed to be carried but not used to harm others except in self defense and that to be judged by a court.
The Federal government has chosen to regulate our ability to carry weapons and to own weapons. We aren’t allowed to own machine guns for example without a special license. We can own a tank or a fighter jet but only under the strictest supervision.
Your whole argument is completely flawed. The second amendment to the constitution says that the “Government” shall make no law to infringe on our rights but John Q public can make any rule he wants on his own property concerning weapons as long as they don’t conflict with existing laws.
Carry, carry all the time.
Depending on the outcome you could be charged with such crimes as disorderly conduct, inciting a riot, and up to manslaughter if a stampede and death ensues.
People in Mental institutions are in a similar situation and have either voluntarily given up their rights but as they are mostly in private institutions the private property has the right to limit weapons rights, it is the Federal (and extended to the states) that has no right to limit weapons rights not private citizens. If I say no guns in my house that is my right.
As far as 18 year olds are concerned, you do not have full constitutional rights until you reach the age of majority, in most states 18 years old.
You are simply stating long standing limits on the right.
I do not particularly enjoy playing Devil's advocate on this. But it seems necessary.
There are many governmental mental institutions. They used to be far more common.
Who determines if a person is mentally a danger to others? It is the court system, often only a judge.
We need to establish, clearly, that due process of law is necessary before fundamental rights are infringed.
It is something where the left constantly pushes the limits.
yes and no.
none of the “yelling fire” examples are anything as seriously infringing and generalized
as the Californication anti-2A commie political hacks have done, are doing to the citizens of that state
not even near
Chuck’s comment is
Like his “tag line”,,,
.
WTF?
.
Thanks Dean.
Thanks for posting. It’s a very interesting case.
It would be great to see the ruling stand if/when it goes to en banc.
One thing missed from these oral arguments is California’s new requirements that make it almost impossible to swap magazines on new AR-15s or other semiautomatic rifles. The are required to be box magazine attached or no button magazines. That obviates magazines completely on long guns completely. Their new rules make even level action guns that hold more than ten rounds illegal! You have to put a blocking plug in the tubular magazine! I don’t know what you can do with older .22 semiautomatic and pumps with tube magazines.
A better analogy is that we all have the proper equipment when we enter a theater to yell fire, a mouth, but restrain ourselves. Some do not, and a very few feel compelled to yell “Fire!” Likewise, every woman has the requisite physical attributes to be a prostitute, some may be better equipped to make a better income than others, but that does not make her a prostitute. Just because we possess a capability and the means to do something criminal does not imply we also have the will or intent to do it. What is lacking in the vast majority of humanity is selfish a criminal intent, the mens rea, to perform conduct that is beyond normal human behavior.
Progressives and Liberals impute such impulses and urges to others, because, I think they possess such desires themselves. It’s what they would do if they were not restrained by fear of punishment.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a right.
“There is a true law, a right reason, conformable to nature, universal, unchangeable, eternal, whose commands urge us to duty, and whose prohibitions restrain us from evil” >>”Whether it enjoins or forbids, the good respect its injunctions, and the wicked treat them with indifference. This law cannot be contradicted by any other law and is not liable either to derogation or abrogation.”
“Neither the senate nor the people can give us any dispensation for not obeying this universal law of justice,” -Cicero
Marked.....like your way of thinking
No, they have lost their rights through due process. Once they have served their time their rights should be restored.
The left keeps trying to nibble away at the right by pushing police power to erode due process.
Yes, and they won’t stop.
I neglected to post a thanks for your latest bear stop stats. I’m not aware of anyone else researching the truth about what does and does not work in real world encounters.
Kudos
You are welcome.
Strange that no one else has done it.
Right time and right place, I guess.
The numbers are so small statistical analysis is not really necessary.
Simply reading about the events, and knowing that all events which can reasonably be verified are included, gives a significant understanding.
We have destroyed a lot of mythology.
You have. Seems obvious bear spray is for people who want to be part of the food chain.
That simply is false.
People have promoted that notion, it appears, in order to save a few bears at the expense of people.
Even if every one of the encounters and attacks, as designated by Herrero and Smith, in their papers, had resulted in the bear being killed, it would not have a significant impact on the bear population.
NO! Every since baiting and dogs were banned in CO towns are over run with bears every fall. And people get blamed because.... trash cans. There are too many and they are losing their fear of people.
And, don't shoot one in your yard because you WILL go to jail and lose your firearm.
/rant
Regards
1) It would fail the "in common use" test.
2) It's easy to imagine many home-defense scenarios in which if you only had one round, you could not effectively defend yourself.
Both these points should also pose a problem, though more subtle, for even a 10-round mag ban.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.