Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

the Constitution is not based on what you feel is needed it's sole purpose is RIGHTS

Rights that are neither unlimited nor absolute; rights subject to limits and restrictions by government consistent with Constitutional case law – such as states having the authority to place limits and restrictions on the open-carrying of firearms.

That you feel you need to carry a gun absent a license in a state that requires a license to do so is not a ‘right.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

Actually not.

Indeed, this has nothing to do with the Second Amendment given the fact the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of laws requiring a permit to possess or carry a gun.

The only right in question would be the Fourth Amendment prohibition of warrantless searches and seizures – and in this case there is no question that the search was perfectly lawful and consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that there is a lowered expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle; clearly law enforcement was justified to approach two disabled vehicles to render aid or assistance.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nothing they did as far as we know was unconstitutional. Are you going to say "well it's the law:", when someone makes guns illegal?

Only government can act in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, not private individuals.

Law enforcement acted consistent with the Constitution; the suspects were in violation of perfectly Constitutional state firearm laws.

Only government has the authority to enact laws, not ‘someone’; and no government would act to make guns ‘illegal’ as that would be un-Constitutional.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You don't believe in rights?

Do you believe rights are limited and not absolute?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Nope. I am a believer in a system of Privileges granted to those who have proven their willingness and ability to live a proper life. Remember I’m an Authoritarian, not a supporter of Democracy.

You are the rarest of rarities – a conservative honest enough to acknowledge his authoritarianism and contempt for democracy.

Unfortunately, your fellow rightists lack such honesty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where do we find "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the COnstitution?

It can be found here in the Constitution:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

A bit more detail..no crime committed, afaik..just some evasive behavior and non-compliance. Got to say...amused by the Moorish American Arms--the Moors were Muslim, right? If these are Black folks...and Islamic...I bet some of those who see the 2nd amendment slant may break themselves twisting away...LOL!

Moorish American National Republic.com – uplifting fallen Humanity

moorishamericannationalrepublic.com

Moorish American Repúblic

Sovereing Theocratic Government of Indiginous Moorish American People...... Holy Prophet Noble Drew Ali Was a founder of......

www.moorish.land

Moorish Science Temple of America | Greenbelt, MD.

The Moorish Science Temple of America, Inc. was founded for the uplifting of fallen humanity. Temples were and still are located all across the United States of America. The temple is a place for the fallen sons and daughters of the Asiatic Nation of North America to learn to love instead of...

msta1913.org

Police: Group in Mass. armed standoff was heading to Maine

I-95 was closed between Lynnfield and Stoneham because of the standoff involving a group of armed men.

www.wmtw.com

The situation began when a trooper spotted two vehicles in the breakdown lane and stopped to offer assistance around 1:30 a.m. Saturday, according to Massachusetts State Police Col. Christopher Mason.
Shortly after 11 Saturday morning, Massachusetts State Police tweeted the shelter-in-place order had been lifted and 11 suspects had been arrested.
Mason said the trooper observed the group trying to refuel a vehicle and saw they were wearing tactical-style gear. They were armed with a combination of rifles and pistols.
The trooper asked the men for identification and called for backup.
According to Massachusetts State Police, the men were traveling to Maine from Rhode Island for what the group called "training."
A spokesperson for Maine State Police said MSP and the Maine Information Analysis Center was aware of the standoff and was "monitoring the situation with our local, state and federal partners."
A group calling themselves "Moorish American Arms" posted a video on Instagram overnight showing armed members blocking the highway.

Why? they are American citizens and all rights are protected for them by the U.S. Constiution.

They're saying that they're not Citizens....and in any event, I see no problem with a cop asking for some ID...from 10 armed people on the side of the road dressed in full field kit.
You have the right to bear arms..and the police have the right to ascertain, if indeed, you have that right..and are not a felon..or non-citizen.

Why? is it because they are black?

That's a pretty stupid question~

 

[San Souci]

1. stop the stupid shit---this is common sense--they ran away, with firearms, from the police
2. most law websites tell you to comply with the police-it's stupid not to
3. like Floyd, etc = STUPID--one of the reasons they get killed--NOT because of skin color

Yes, there are two limited exceptions. First, in some states, you must provide your name to law enforcement officers if you are stopped and told to identify yourself.

Stay calm. Don’t run, resist, or obstruct the officers. Do not lie or give false documents. Keep your hands where the police can see them.

Know Your Rights | Stopped by Police | ACLU

Being stopped by police is a stressful experience that can go bad quickly. Here we describe what the law requires and also offer strategies for handling police encounters. We want to be clear: The burden of de-escalation does not fall on private citizens — it falls on police officers. However...

www.aclu.org

aclu

Know Your Rights | What To Do When Encountering Questions from Law Enforcement | ACLU

Know your rights when encountering questions from law enforcement.

www.aclu.org

Actually ,the Stupid comes from that.

 

[Anathema]

ou are the rarest of rarities – a conservative honest enough to acknowledge his authoritarianism and contempt for democracy

Human beings in general, and modern Americans in particular have largely proven themselves unable or unwilling to act properly when given options or freedoms. It’s just that simple.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 2nd Amendment applies to all states.

No one says it doesn’t.

But the states have the right to enact their own firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.

Nowhere in the 2nd is there any wiggle room.

Nonsense.

The Second Amendment has always recognized the right to be limited and subject to restrictions by government:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” ibid

 

[pknopp]

Men surrounded for exercising Second Amendment rights.

Actually not.

Indeed, this has nothing to do with the Second Amendment given the fact the Supreme Court has never ruled on the Constitutionality of laws requiring a permit to possess or carry a gun.

The only right in question would be the Fourth Amendment prohibition of warrantless searches and seizures – and in this case there is no question that the search was perfectly lawful and consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that there is a lowered expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle; clearly law enforcement was justified to approach two disabled vehicles to render aid or assistance.

The 2nd mentions no permits.

 

[pknopp]

Nothing they did as far as we know was unconstitutional. Are you going to say "well it's the law:", when someone makes guns illegal?

Only government can act in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution, not private individuals.

Law enforcement acted consistent with the Constitution; the suspects were in violation of perfectly Constitutional state firearm laws.

Only government has the authority to enact laws, not ‘someone’; and no government would act to make guns ‘illegal’ as that would be un-Constitutional.

Law.enforcement represents the government.

 

[pknopp]

Where do we find "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the COnstitution?

It can be found here in the Constitution:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

That says nothing of the sort.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What law did they break?

Multiple Massachusetts statues including safe transport of firearms laws, unlawful possession of firearms, etc…

…carrying a firearm without a license, possession of a firearm without a license, lack of a firearm identification card.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

what restrictive gun law consistent with the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

This makes no sense.

Firearm regulatory measures are either Constitutional or they’re not – if the courts have not found a measure to be in violation of the Second Amendment, then such a measure is perfectly lawful and ‘infringes’ on no rights.

The doctrine of presumed constitutionality holds that until such time as the Supreme Court rules a law or measure to be invalid, that law or measure is considered to be lawful and enforceable (see, for example, US v. Morrison (2000)).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

yes they lose their rights

Wrong.

Rights are not ‘lost’ – our rights are inalienable, neither bestowed nor taken by any government, constitution, or man.

Although inalienable, our rights are not absolute – they’re subject to limits and restrictions by government reflecting the will of the people, consistent with Constitutional case law.

State and Federal laws rendering convicted felons prohibited persons are an example of a lawful restriction by government, such laws having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I disagree. It's the proper role of a citizen to ignore unconstitutional laws.

You can disagree all you want but this is both ridiculous and wrong.

It’s the proper role of citizens to seek to have laws they consider to be un-Constitutional overturned by either the political process (repealing laws) or through the judicial process by filing suit to seek relief in court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There has been NO Supreme Court rulings that state a state can restrict your 2nd Amendment rights.

It doesn’t need to – states have the authority to enact all manner of measures placing limits and restriction on the Second Amendment right provided those limits and restrictions don’t violate Second Amendment case law.

Certain you’re not arguing states’ rights do not exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

ou are the rarest of rarities – a conservative honest enough to acknowledge his authoritarianism and contempt for democracy

Human beings in general, and modern Americans in particular have largely proven themselves unable or unwilling to act properly when given options or freedoms. It’s just that simple.

Your confirmation of the fact that conservatives are advocates of authoritarianism and enemies of democracy is noted with thanks.

 

[Anathema]

Your confirmation of the fact that conservatives are advocates of authoritarianism and enemies of democracy is noted with thanks

True Conservatism requires an Authoritarian Society in order to flourish because it is about Law and Order /Right and Wrong over the preferences of any individual or group.,