Permanent resident aliens have second amendment rights too

[NavyLCDR]

I dont see why requiring a card in MA is unconstitutional. Stupid? Yes.

What if a state issued card was required to exercise free speech? How about can't go to church until the state OK's it? Here's a good one: make a background check required to be protected by the 4th amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures, that would make cops jobs lots eaiser! Instead of just not consenting to a search, be required to display your search and seizure exemption card - shall issue, of course, after providing fingerprints and passing the background check.

Why is it acceptable to "reasonably regulate" the 2nd Amendment so much more than any other in the Bill of Rights?

 

[Neverwinter]

Why is it acceptable to "reasonably regulate" the 2nd Amendment so much more than any other in the Bill of Rights?

The other rights in the Bill of Rights are "reasonably regulated", as the recent USSC strip search decision has shown.

 

[NavyLCDR]

The other rights in the Bill of Rights are "reasonably regulated", as the recent USSC strip search decision has shown.

The recent USSC has ruled that it does not violate the 4th Amendment to strip search persons entering incarceration, even for short periods of time. Persons entering incarceration, even for short periods of time also cannot exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

So, like I said, why is it acceptable to "reasonably regulate" the 2nd Amendment more than the rest of the Bill of Rights.

 

[Bubba613]

What if a state issued card was required to exercise free speech? How about can't go to church until the state OK's it?

False analogy alert.

 

[smalls]

That's not a false analogy. These are all constitutionally protected rights. Protected meaning they can't just add or subtract things as they wish, like taxes and permits, etc. And somethin about "Shall NOT be infringed..." being in the second amendment. Damn that tricky wording!

 

[Bubba613]

There are no absolute rights. Guns are not speech. It is a false analogy. Heller upheld the constitutionality of such things.
You can argue they are bad policy (which they are). But not unconstitutional.

 

[smalls]

Please explain a little deeper.
You said there are no absolute rights, then stated guns are not speech. Implying that the right to free speech is an absolute right.

 

[smalls]

I'd like to add something, as well. You're right, rights are not absolute. They can be changed, and taken away. BUT, there is a correct way to do this, and passing laws is NOT the correct, or legal way to do this. They could even add in that you need a Bible permit, or add in a Free Speech Tax.
You have to Ratify the Constitution. Impossible? No, they've done it before. I'd really like to see them try and ratify it to take away rights such as gun ownership, free speech, or such.

 

[Bubba613]

You said there are no absolute rights, then stated guns are not speech. Implying that the right to free speech is an absolute right.

It was not implied. You inferred that. Incorrectly, btw.

 

[smalls]

Then would you care to dive a little deeper into your statements, so that I can infer the correct message?

 

[Bubba613]

There are no absolute rights. Period. Clear?

 

[Loosedhorse]

What if a state issued card was required to exercise free speech?

It is. Go to a radio station, see if they have a federal license; probably a state license, too. Go to a political rally, and see if they have a permit to use the space. Even the 99%ers--despite being the darlings of the liberal politicians and liberal media--found out, eventually, that the laws and regulations applied to them, too.

Sure, you can have a soap box, stand on it, and gab at passers-by (for a while anyway) without a permit. If you want to use a more powerful medium to get your message out, guess what: permits and regulations.

If you want to "go armed" in MA with a roll of quarters in your pocket, be my guest. If you want something a little more powerful, you might want to look into permits and regulations.

Just my humble perspective.

 

[smalls]

There are no absolute rights. Period. Clear?

Yessir

 

[Neverwinter]

The recent USSC has ruled that it does not violate the 4th Amendment to strip search persons entering incarceration, even for short periods of time. Persons entering incarceration, even for short periods of time also cannot exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.

So, like I said, why is it acceptable to "reasonably regulate" the 2nd Amendment more than the rest of the Bill of Rights.

That description just invalidated your closing paragraph that somehow guns are subject to "reasonable regulation" while other rights are not.

Sent using Tapatalk

 

[NavyLCDR]

Whatever. If you think it is OK for the state to say who can carry a gun, who can't and where you can and can't carry the gun once they give you permission to that you must pay a fee to obtain, then we know where are problems lie.

 

[Neverwinter]

Whatever. If you think it is OK for the state to say who can carry a gun, who can't and where you can and can't carry the gun once they give you permission to that you must pay a fee to obtain, then we know where are problems lie.

None of those posts indicated an approval of the state controlling who and where you can't carry unless you pay for a permit. Where our problems lie is in the projection of ignorance with the claim that somehow the 2nd amendment is uniquely subjected to "reasonable restrictions". That position is divergent from reality, and weakens our position.

 

[NavyLCDR]

None of those posts indicated an approval of the state controlling who and where you can't carry unless you pay for a permit. Where our problems lie is in the projection of ignorance with the claim that somehow the 2nd amendment is uniquely subjected to "reasonable restrictions". That position is divergent from reality, and weakens our position.

Like I said..... last time I checked I did not have to pay the state for a card to carry in my wallet to go to the church of my choice, only after fingerprints and a background check.

I did not have to get the state's permission to post on this internet forum.

I do not have to offer proof to a police officer that I have passed a background check in order to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures.

I can exercise these same first and 4th amendment rights in any state that I choose to, whether or not I am a resident of that state.

I don't need a license to carry a Bible in public, even if I want to hide it from everyone. I can mail, give, or sell a Bible to anyone I want to.

So tell me again how the 2nd Amendment has no more regulations attached to it than the rest of the Bill of Rights do? Tell me again how our right to both keep and bear arms are no more infringed upon or regulated than our other rights? Seriously?

Let's attach the same "reasonable regulation" to the right to free speech, the right to religious worship, the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, or the right to trials by jury as we do to firearms and see how far it gets.

 

[Bubba613]

So tell me again how the 2nd Amendment has no more regulations attached to it than the rest of the Bill of Rights do? Tell me again how our right to both keep and bear arms are no more infringed upon or regulated than our other rights? Seriously?

Let's attach the same "reasonable regulation" to the right to free speech, the right to religious worship, the right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure, or the right to trials by jury as we do to firearms and see how far it gets.

Strawman alert.
It isn't a question of whether one right has more or less regulation. It is a matter of fact that all of them are subject to regulation of one sort or another. You have free speech. That does not extend to libel. You have free exercise of religion. That does not extend to human sacrifice. You have freedom of assembly. That can be regulated through permits.
In ever case where the state has compelling interest it may restrict or regulate.

 

[alana]

Yes ATF is doing away with the requirement of 90days' residence.

I just finished my taxes for the year so I'm grumpy. This is possibly the best piece of news I've seen this week. To the point that I'm not even going to complain about how much the fed taketh...

Unless you are one of those who actually keeps a bill after they paid it, you have no idea what a pita this requirement is - it totally destroys impulse purchases...

 

[browningguy]

What if a state issued card was required to exercise free speech? How about can't go to church until the state OK's it?

Similar things are in place. Your free speech is regulated by what you can say, where and when you can say it. If you don't do what they say you go to jail. Right to assembly, absolutely the same thing, remember all the Tea Partyers wanted the 99% sent to jail for trying to exercise their rights. Can't have it both ways folks.

Want to build a church, better get a building permit and then have a bunch of state inspections during construction, and you even need a permit, an occupancy permit that is. And dont forget the state tells you how many people can attend that church at the same time.

So reasonable regulation happens in all walks of life, and it has to. Without some forms of regulation instead of a society we have complete anarchy.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Assuming you are right, then I guess we are OK in this country. There is no infringement on the 2nd Amendment. It would be interesting to poll the members of this forum and see how many agree.

 

[Neverwinter]

Assuming you are right, then I guess we are OK in this country. There is no infringement on the 2nd Amendment. It would be interesting to poll the members of this forum and see how many agree.

Argumentum ad populum for a different position from the original regarding the uniqueness of the 2nd amendment being subjected to "reasonable regulations".

The argument is akin to asking why it's acceptable to break one dropped vase while the other vases have been shattered with different means. Then proposing that we take the broken pieces of the other vases and drop those as well to prove they aren't already broken.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Argumentum ad populum for a different position from the original regarding the uniqueness of the 2nd amendment being subjected to "reasonable regulations".

The argument is akin to asking why it's acceptable to break one dropped vase while the other vases have been shattered with different means. Then proposing that we take the broken pieces of the other vases and drop those as well to prove they aren't already broken.

It doesn't matter what I post, you are going to argue against it.

 

[Neverwinter]

It doesn't matter what I post, you are going to argue against it.

This is by and large a function of the validity of the argument provided.

 

[Bubba613]

Assuming you are right, then I guess we are OK in this country. There is no infringement on the 2nd Amendment. It would be interesting to poll the members of this forum and see how many agree.

There is no infringement. It may not be ideal from a policy standpoint but that is very different from unconstitutional.
Since the members of the board are largely self selecting for their views, and very few of them are constitutional scholars, asking them proves nothing.