National Gun Registry

[The2ndAmendment]

Shit just got serious if they had to call Clayton into the thread (Orwellian image of Constitution in his portrait).

 

[gallantwarrior]

But no voter ID.


liberal hypocrisy at its worst.

I would like for one liberal to tell me why they object to proving who they are before voting.

you have to prove identity to register to vote, what is wrong with showing the same ID at the polling place?

Conservative ignorance at its best.

First, not all ‘liberals’ advocate a ‘gun registry,’ and with that fallacy so fails your thread.

Second, no one is opposed to providing ID to register to vote, as it’s important to verify one is a citizen, not a felon, and otherwise eligible to vote.

Once a citizen has registered to vote, however, and as long as he remains on the voter registration rolls in good standing, there is no reason to require a citizen to show ID at every election, where he has voted consistently over the years, and has not been purged from the rolls.

Third, voting is a fundamental right, and there is no evidence that requiring ID in any way reduces ‘voter fraud’; indeed, there is no evidence ‘voter fraud’ exists to the extent that such an excessive measure is justified.

Last, the myth of ‘voter fraud’ is a contrivance by the right, completely unfounded; it is an article of religious faith of republicans that they’re losing elections due to ‘fraud,’ when in fact they lose elections not due to ‘fraud,’ but because voters reject the conservative agenda and its candidates.

Liberal ignorance at its best: the fundamental RIGHT to possess (bear) arms is recognized and codified in the 2d Amendment. The Constitution does not include voting in the list of enumerated "fundamental" rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Once a citizen has registered to vote, however, and as long as he remains on the voter registration rolls in good standing, there is no reason to require a citizen to show ID at every election, where he has voted consistently over the years, and has not been purged from the rolls.

How do you positively associate the name of the person on the registration rolls with the person trying to cast a ballot under that name?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Once a citizen has registered to vote, however, and as long as he remains on the voter registration rolls in good standing, there is no reason to require a citizen to show ID at every election, where he has voted consistently over the years, and has not been purged from the rolls.

How do you positively associate the name of the person on the registration rolls with the person trying to cast a ballot under that name?

I still believe that Elections should be done in a very old fashioned manner.

Every voter throws their their ballot into a hat, where each ballot has a special serial number each vote must remember (if they choose to).

Every time the hat fills, they count the ballots in full public display, with the serial number visible. Then they tally it onto a blackboard.

Rinse and Repeat.

 

[AmericanFirst]

But no voter ID.


liberal hypocrisy at its worst.

I would like for one liberal to tell me why they object to proving who they are before voting.

you have to prove identity to register to vote, what is wrong with showing the same ID at the polling place?

Libtards don't mind illegal voting because it put obamaturd in office, twice. They like gun registry so they can take our guns away from us. When they say they are not going to take our guns, they are lying out their ass like they always do.

 

[AmericanFirst]

How can we confiscate your guns if we don't make you register them first

Try to keep up with the program. We can't populate the FEMA Death camps if all you people are armed

Spoken like a true commie, commie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's none of the government's business as to who is in possession of a gun or what kind.

What does it matter?

And who says they do not have that right? The Constitution is the basis for our government, and our government is empowered to amend it and interpret it, and do so yearly using laws passed.

But again, what does it matter?

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments instruct us explicitly how to read our Constitution. Only a Jury may interpret the law (Jury Nullification), unless a Jury cannot be summoned for that Case, which case a judge (or set of judges) may interpret the Law and Constitution under Article III, Sections 1 and 2. READ THE BOLD PRINT IN PARTICULAR

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Ninth Amendment has four important functions:

I. It functions as an educational tool, whose information cannot be hidden from the public.

II. It functions to prevent government from invalidating a ruling by either a jury or lower court through strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

III. It functions to define Judicial Tyranny, limiting the power of judicial review (in conjunction with the 10th Amendment).

IV. To define and encourage Judicial Activism, assuming it does not fall under the category of Judicial Tyranny.

Function 1:

The first function of the Ninth Amendment is to serve as an Educational amendment, in order to instruct the citizens of the United States that our rights, especially those that are enumerated, are bestowed upon us by birth --- not by government; that government can only perpetrate oppression and abuse --- neither liberty nor protection --- via the denial or disparagement of our rights; that the government at its very best is but a necessary evil.

This particular function has NO meaning in a judicial process, it simply serves as a reminder to all citizens that any politician that preaches or espouses the idea of "Government created rights," or other Statist philosophies, is rotten to the core. It would make for a great attack ad, because it would either force the defending politician the renounce Natural Rights, or spin an overtly contradictory web of "justifications" to "clarify" their remarks.

Function 2:

The second function of the Ninth Amendment prevents a higher level of authority from invalidating a decision by a jury through a strict interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

For instance, suppose that a factory was producing massive amounts of toxic air pollution, and the laws were relatively difficult to enforce because they were poorly written, then the jury could rule against the factory by this justification:

"Every man has the right of Life, and as such, the right to breathe. We have determined that the air toxicity has infringed upon the people's right to breathe, and thus their right to life. This is in accordance and in the spirit of the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution."

Thus the judge would be unable to invoke a "Judgment notwithstanding the verdict," to acquit the factory (unless he can prove the evidence for air toxicity was extremely faulty), forming a bulwark against judicial cronyism.

Keep in mind that a juror CANNOT go public with any of their thoughts or commentary until AFTER the verdict.

Function 3:

Although the Constitution allows judicial review*** via Jury Nullification or through a decision made by a judge (or judges), the practice of judicial review is restrained by the combination of Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which come together to define the practice of Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Limits the rights of citizens.

2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.

3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.

4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.

The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be delimited, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.

IV.

The final function is to establish under which circumstances that Judicial Review can act as positive force, and what exactly are the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Judicial Review process, we will call this positive form of Judicial Review to be Judicial Activism.

Judicial Activism is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Is not an act of Judicial Tyranny

2. Expands the rights of citizens without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of either the State or Federal governments.

3. Expands the rights of States, without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

4. Does not serve to legislate Common Law.


*** Is judicial review allowed?

Excerpt from Article III, Section 1:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court."

Excerpt from Article III, Section 2:

""The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority."

Excerpt 1 + Excerpt 2 = Judicial Review is allowed through either Jury Nullification or a court ruling, with the Supreme Court having the ultimate authority, unless a defendant is found NOT GUILTY by a Jury, as the Sixth Amendment bars any judge from overturning a NOT GUILTY verdict.

Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury ...

The word "enjoy" means that although a GUILTY verdict can be overturned (under extreme lack of evidence), a NOT GUILTY verdict can NEVER be overturned, not even by the Supreme Court.

------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------



Overall, the Ninth Amendment cements the Libertarian foundation of our Constitution, and our Founding Fathers (and the State legislatures) ratified this Amendment into the Bill of Rights so these Libertarian ideas could not be HIDDEN from the public by future tyrants, who would try to promote Statism.

The plutocratic elite that dominates the United States (primarily through the privately owned Federal Reserve) has done an excellent job in fooling the citizens to succumb to the idea of Government created Privileges, instead of Naturally Endowed Rights; in fact, they've done such a good job, that practically any google search will yield a result informing you that the Ninth Amendment is irrelevant. Do you really think our Founding Fathers (given all the disagreements among themselves) and the State Legislatures went through all that trouble to ratify a useless Amendment? Do not be fooled, the Ninth Amendment is the very foundation of our Constitution!

So if any individual, group, organization or corporation attempts to promote Statism, remember that your Legal and Moral Bulwark against these Authoritarians is the Ninth Amendment.

Links to the above?

Just because someone expresses his subjective, personal opinion about the Constitution doesn’t make it so.

And you also forgot to cite the case law in support.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It mentions a well regulated militia

How can we regulate you if you don't have a permit?

I didn't have a permit when the Navy handed me a .45 and told me to shoot anyone who tried to get on the ship. In fact, I hadn't even fired it, and never once had to do so, yet I had carried it every 4 days.

You sound well regulated to me

I never did get that bathroom schedule down, even in boot camp.

 

[jon_berzerk]

But no voter ID.


liberal hypocrisy at its worst.

I would like for one liberal to tell me why they object to proving who they are before voting.

you have to prove identity to register to vote, what is wrong with showing the same ID at the polling place?

nope

no thanks

registration = confiscation

 

[Agit8r]

Here is a proposal that should make everybody happy; establish a non-profit non-governmental clearinghouse for criminal background information, which would give the pertinent information to FFL holders, but which would be forbidden from giving information on FFL queries to any government agency without a court order.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Here is a proposal that should make everybody happy; establish a non-profit non-governmental clearinghouse for criminal background information, which would give the pertinent information to FFL holders, but which would be forbidden from giving information on FFL queries to any government agency without a court order.

or simply use your concealed carry permit

as proof of a background check

 

[Agit8r]

Here is a proposal that should make everybody happy; establish a non-profit non-governmental clearinghouse for criminal background information, which would give the pertinent information to FFL holders, but which would be forbidden from giving information on FFL queries to any government agency without a court order.

or simply use your concealed carry permit

as proof of a background check

Sure, but what if someone doesn't need one or lives in a jurisdiction where they are hard to come by, but does have use for a rifle?

I thought that a big part of the objection to universal background checks was that Big Brother could potentially see who is buying what, and thus knows who has the guns.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Here is a proposal that should make everybody happy; establish a non-profit non-governmental clearinghouse for criminal background information, which would give the pertinent information to FFL holders, but which would be forbidden from giving information on FFL queries to any government agency without a court order.

or simply use your concealed carry permit

as proof of a background check

Sure, but what if someone doesn't need one or lives in a jurisdiction where they are hard to come by, but does have use for a rifle?

I thought that a big part of the objection to universal background checks was that Big Brother could potentially see who is buying what, and thus knows who has the guns.

during private sales

the government wouldnt know who or even if a sale happened

end of story

 

[Agit8r]

or simply use your concealed carry permit

as proof of a background check

Sure, but what if someone doesn't need one or lives in a jurisdiction where they are hard to come by, but does have use for a rifle?

I thought that a big part of the objection to universal background checks was that Big Brother could potentially see who is buying what, and thus knows who has the guns.

during private sales

the government wouldnt know who or even if a sale happened

end of story

yeah, there isn't a very practicable way to keep people from illegally transferring guns without going through an FFL, other than the unlikely threat of punishment.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Sure, but what if someone doesn't need one or lives in a jurisdiction where they are hard to come by, but does have use for a rifle?

I thought that a big part of the objection to universal background checks was that Big Brother could potentially see who is buying what, and thus knows who has the guns.

during private sales

the government wouldnt know who or even if a sale happened

end of story

yeah, there isn't a very practicable way to keep people from illegally transferring guns without going through an FFL, other than the unlikely threat of punishment.

there would be no crime involved

as long as the guy had a valid cc permit

even with a FFL crimes can happen

take mark kelly for example

when he purchased his pistol

he was denied at first because he produced a Texas drivers license

he returned shortly with an Arizona drivers license

to complete the process

more questions arise when he completed his 4473 form

declaring that the ar-15 was for himself


later on he said that he was planning on giving it away

to the police

which could be a straw purchase


you do realize that the bad guys would not honor

either a cc permit check between two private folks

or a instant check from a a FFL for that matter

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is a proposal that should make everybody happy; establish a non-profit non-governmental clearinghouse for criminal background information, which would give the pertinent information to FFL holders, but which would be forbidden from giving information on FFL queries to any government agency without a court order.

If I don't want the government doing it, why would I want a corporation doing it?

 

[Agit8r]

Here is a proposal that should make everybody happy; establish a non-profit non-governmental clearinghouse for criminal background information, which would give the pertinent information to FFL holders, but which would be forbidden from giving information on FFL queries to any government agency without a court order.

If I don't want the government doing it, why would I want a corporation doing it?

Presumably because you wouldn't have to worry about your gun transaction being stored by the DHS.

 

[rightwinger]

I didn't have a permit when the Navy handed me a .45 and told me to shoot anyone who tried to get on the ship. In fact, I hadn't even fired it, and never once had to do so, yet I had carried it every 4 days.

You sound well regulated to me

I never did get that bathroom schedule down, even in boot camp.

I was always quite regular. 7:30 AM .....you could set your watch by it

My problem was that I did not get up till 8