Guns are having a VERY bad day at SCOTUS

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

C_Clayton_Jones

What's so funny? Are you saying a right can be taxed?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

That is simply not true. Context matters. There are no individual or singular terms in our Second Amendment. Simply implying it is a fallacy.

The 2nd Amendment specifically states "the right of the people", just like the 1st Amendment does. Are you going to apply the same standard to the 1st Amendment?...lol

 

[danielpalos]

The 2nd Amendment specifically states "the right of the people", just like the 1st Amendment does. Are you going to apply the same standard to the 1st Amendment?...lol

No, because the context deals with individual rights; unlike the Second Amendment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A concealed carry permit is no different than a poll tax. The court has already ruled that a right cannot be taxed.

Wrong.

All manner of rights are subject to permits and registration requirements that are perfectly Constitutional:

‘Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA and curator of the libertarian-leaning Volokh.com site, addresses this in an article in the latest UCLA Law Review. It argues that a registration requirement is commonplace among other constitutional rights.

Volokh writes: "Even speakers may sometimes need to register or get licensed. Parade organizers may be required to get permits. Gatherers of initiative signatures may be required to register with the government, and so may fundraisers for charitable causes, though such fundraising is constitutionally protected." He adds that even the right to marry and the right to vote can require licenses or registration, and he believes gun rights are "more like the trackable rights, and that it is the untrackable rights that are the constitutional outlier."’

Sorry, Mandatory Gun Registration Is Constitutional

Second Amendment Advocates Don't Like It, But It May Be Permissible; A Lawsuit Against Washington, D.C. Could Decide The Question

www.cbsnews.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Which are questions the Supreme Court was created to answer but as is so often the case, they are cowards and won't answer it.

They’re also more politicians than jurists – they read the polls showing the low regard Americans have for the Court.

 

[pknopp]

They’re also more politicians than jurists – they read the polls showing the low regard Americans have for the Court.

Unfortunately I believe we are heading more and more in that direction.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When has a requirement by a state to obtain a license for the simple exercise of a right been upheld by the USSC?

All laws and acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise – ultimately the Supreme Court.

Laws and measures that place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right which have not been invalidated by the courts are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘infringing’ on the Second Amendment right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

C_Clayton_Jones

What's so funny? Are you saying a right can be taxed?

What’s funny is your willful ignorance – it’s also sad.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Wrong.

All manner of rights are subject to permits and registration requirements that are perfectly Constitutional:

‘Eugene Volokh, a professor of law at UCLA and curator of the libertarian-leaning Volokh.com site, addresses this in an article in the latest UCLA Law Review. It argues that a registration requirement is commonplace among other constitutional rights.

Volokh writes: "Even speakers may sometimes need to register or get licensed. Parade organizers may be required to get permits. Gatherers of initiative signatures may be required to register with the government, and so may fundraisers for charitable causes, though such fundraising is constitutionally protected." He adds that even the right to marry and the right to vote can require licenses or registration, and he believes gun rights are "more like the trackable rights, and that it is the untrackable rights that are the constitutional outlier."’

Sorry, Mandatory Gun Registration Is Constitutional

Second Amendment Advocates Don't Like It, But It May Be Permissible; A Lawsuit Against Washington, D.C. Could Decide The Question

www.cbsnews.com

Name one right, listed in the Constitution that is taxed, or requires a permit, aside from gun ownership.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

What’s funny is your willful ignorance – it’s also sad.

You're the one that doesn't understand that the court ruled that rights can't be taxed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unfortunately I believe we are heading more and more in that direction.

We’ll see the same thing with privacy rights.

They lack the courage to overturn Roe – instead they’ll allow the Texas or Mississippi anti-privacy rights laws to stand, authorizing de facto abortion bans.

 

[pknopp]

We’ll see the same thing with privacy rights.

They lack the courage to overturn Roe – instead they’ll allow the Texas or Mississippi anti-privacy rights laws to stand, authorizing de facto abortion bans.

They won't allow the laws to stand. Their arguments pretty well assured that. The justices that might be willing to overturn RvW understood this same kind of law could be used to ban guns and whatever else someone wanted to ban.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wrong.
All manner of rights are subject to permits and registration requirements that are perfectly Constitutional:

Sure. Time, place and manner restrictions on the right to free speech, for instance.
Now, tell the class why the state can require a parade permit - a license - but not a permit to place that "Let's go Brandon!" sign in your front window.
If you know, that is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All laws and acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise

Ah! See! You DO think the Texas abortion law is constitutional!
Just like I said. Over and over and over.

 

[pknopp]

Sure. Time, place and manner restrictions on the right to free speech, for instance.
Now, tell the class why the state can require a parade permit, but not a permit to place that "Let's go Brandon!" sign in your front window.
If you know, that is.

They can require a parade permit because you are closing down a street. Despite cities passing a law that says you have to get a permit to protest, you do not.

 

[miketx]

Difficult questions from Kagan and CJ Roberts. The basics:

You're an idiot if you believe anything the LA Slimes prints. But then I digress. You see, we don't care what they say. Rights are rights. So come get some.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They can require a parade permit because you are closing down a street.

Of course.

 

[Abatis]

All laws and acts of government are presumed to be Constitutional until the courts rule otherwise – ultimately the Supreme Court.

Does that 'rule' extend to rights deemed fundamental by SCOTUS? Does SCOTUS have to constantly, repeatedly correct and rebuke Congress like it is a incorrigible child?

Laws and measures that place limits and restrictions on the Second Amendment right which have not been invalidated by the courts are perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘infringing’ on the Second Amendment right.

How do your statements in your quoted post, mesh with the quote you have chosen as your signature?

Your position seems to irreconcilably clash with signature; you seem to argue that no rights are withdrawn from the vicissitudes of political controversy. You are saying the recognition and protection of our rights is not guided by permanent, inviolate principles.

You seem to be saying the Constitution sets no limits on Congressional power; Congress has the power to legislate on all subjects in any manner and specifically, their power to restrict rights is without any limits but being subject to later challenge, possible review and maybe invalidation after enactment.

It is interesting, by what standard or benchmark will the Court decide if the law passed by Congress is an illegitimate exercise of power?

How does the Constitution set rules for the Court that the Court is bound to operate within and enforce, but Congress has autonomy, complete independence from the Constitution, total freedom to make any law without regard for conformance with the Constitution?

Your position seems to have logical and legal incongruities.

Your sig, just to remind you . . .

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal Principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections. Justice Robert H. Jackson, West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette, 1943​

 

[Ivan88]

Politicians faithfully believe in and do the following because Americans rebelled against their Creator who has warned them, "Those who hate you rule over you.":

 

[Rigby5]

Except for when that state doesn't do what you like.............

One could say abortion should be a state by state issue....but

I disagree.
Guns have to be legislated by someone, but according to the 2nd amendment, not the feds.
And that makes sense because rural Alaska is full of bears, and very different than NYC.

But abortion should not be regulated by anyone at all, ever.
There is government who has need or standing to regulate abortion in any way.