Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, you don't need a license to speak. Only if your gathering is going to create a public safety issue do you have to schedule it with the local authorities.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is at all hard to understand? The Second Amendment is the only line in the entire constitution with that specific and clear prohibition on the gov't.
You are clueless. It is a crime for any federal agency to keep a record of firearms transfers for more than 90 days without an open case and a warrant.You have no idea…..none whatsoever. The FBI does. They track the weapons. You don’t.
That isn't the law anywhere in the US. Where are you getting this crap?It doesn't matter what the reason is, it's law that you must obtain a permit. Now we get to the determination of what infringed means. Should criminals be allowed to be armed in prison? How about being able to vote once they get out? What about age restrictions on voting?
Funny, that.
Is there a license to riot too?
Did BLM obtain one?
Criminals are not "The People".Should criminals be allowed to be armed in prison? How about being able to vote once they get out? What about age restrictions on voting?
That isn't the law anywhere in the US. Where are you getting this crap?
So as I said, only if your gathering creates a public safety issue. The speech is not restricted, they just need to be notified so they can provide adequate services to police the gathering.Of course it's a law, a city law. You need a permit to host a public gathering be it to speak or have a block party on your street.
Criminals are not "The People".
You can forfeit any or all of your rights upon conviction of a crime.
Age restrictions do not violate any part of the Constitution, Full rights are not afforded to minors because they cannot be held fully accountable for their actions until they reach the age of majority. Today that age is 18.
Read the link I posted. Here it is again:I agree. The primary thrust of my post was simply to rebut what I quoted; the idea that "Trump signed an anti-gun EO that banned bump stocks" and "this action by Trump set a precedent for future presidents to whittle away at gun rights via EOs". Nowhere in my post -- directed to explain the actual history and regulatory and legal background -- did I endorse or support the claim of power to do what was done.
If any President set any precedent, was Obama's EO-13637, (2013) that established that Presidents can authorize agencies to interpret law to form regulations on arms, including review of definitions.
For bumpstocks, ATF didn't redefine machinegun, they read the definition in law, 26 U.S.C. 5845(b) . . .
“The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
and decided that external accessories that facilitate bump-fire, meet the basic criteria in the law of a machinegun:
"ATF has now determined, based on its interpretation of the relevant statutory language, that these bump-stock-type devices, which harness recoil energy in conjunction with the shooter's maintenance of pressure, turn legal semiautomatic firearms into machineguns. Specifically, ATF has determined that these devices initiate an “automatic[]” firing cycle sequence “by a single function of the trigger” because the device is the primary impetus for a firing sequence that fires more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger."
I'm not saying any of that is legally correct, just that it is the law . . . I don't think there is any dispute that ATF is redefining frame and receiver with the new regulations on "homemade" guns / 80% receivers . . .
I should have said "initiated". ATF responded to a request by some Congress members for ATF to reevaluate the agency's previous determinations on bumpstocks.
reason.com
But it doesn't say that in the Constitution. Point being, rights are not without strings attached which I gave several instances of. It all depends on which right you're talking about and the effect on the public in general.
lolOf course it's a law, a city law. You need a permit to host a public gathering be it to speak or have a block party on your street.
So as I said, only if your gathering creates a public safety issue. The speech is not restricted, they just need to be notified so they can provide adequate services to police the gathering.
You can stand up anywhere in public anytime and give a speech legally unless you're interfering with the rights of others or ongoing gov't operations such as counsel meeting or court session.
You sue their ass and win.And so what happens if a city decides not to give you a permit to host your gathering in which to speak?
Where does it say your rights can be forfeit on conviction of a crime? That certainly did not happen for the first 149 years of our nation's history. The only right that can be revoked for crime, according to the Constitution, is the right to vote.Criminals are not "The People".
You can forfeit any or all of your rights upon conviction of a crime.
Age restrictions do not violate any part of the Constitution, Full rights are not afforded to minors because they cannot be held fully accountable for their actions until they reach the age of majority. Today that age is 18.
See? You're thinking about this all wrong.And so what happens if a city decides not to give you a permit to host your gathering in which to speak?
That's exactly what it says, "The Right of The People". "The People" is the whole of the people in the country.
Read Scalia's opinion in Heller, it's all spelled out in detail.
lolRights are restricted to certain people. If they were not, mentally unstable people would have to be allowed to not only buy a gun, but carry it out in public as well. We don't allow that for obvious reasons.
Where does it say your rights can be forfeit on conviction of a crime? That certainly did not happen for the first 149 years of our nation's history. The only right that can be revoked for crime, according to the Constitution, is the right to vote.
And where does it say rights don't apply to minors? Are you suggesting they can be jailed without a trial? No free speech? Searched at will with no probable cause?
You're still thinking like a law abiding citizen. Don't you realize that's not in fashion any more? No one's doing it, not even the FBIAnd so what happens if a city decides not to give you a permit to host your gathering in which to speak?
Right, but that doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment. It violated Article 2 and the 5th Amendment.
