You and Kevin29 appear to agree that "Rights is Rights", without agreeing to how best define and enforce your/my/our "Rights". In the overall context of where "Rights" originate; is it the Constitution, Federal Legislation, State Legislation, or USSC; that decides "Marriage is between..."? As the title of the original post is "Right ... (fill in the blank?): ... Federal Matter"; I don't believe I am outside the guidelines in asking.
1 Like
You and Gary105 appear to agree that "Rights is Rights", without agreeing to how best define and enforce your/my/our "Rights". In the overall context of where "Rights" originate; is it the Constitution, Federal Legislation, State Legislation, or USSC; that decides "Marriage is between..."? As the title of the original post is "Right ... (fill in the blank?): ... Federal Matter"; I don't believe I am outside the guidelines in asking.
1 Like
I don’t see the necessity to go into the detail you seem to be asking for. But to clarify… I realize that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not the same document, but they were written by many of the same men who believed “that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”. These are rights which are considered “God-given” or “natural” rights which the Founders deemed worthy of protecting from legislative infraction. These rights were not “given” by the Constitution nor any legislative body or government, they were defended from governmental infringement by the Bill of Rights as rights that all men have.
As for the question about who has the right to determine who can marry whom, I don’t find that pertinent to this discussion nor this forum.
3 Likes
It’s always nice to encounter another Constitutional Originalist.
Perhaps Justice Gorsuch will hold true, re: NY State Rifle and Pistol v. City of New York, NY aka NYSRPA v . NYC
1 Like
I pray Gorsuch holds true. And I still hold out hope that Roberts will be the Justice we hoped him to be when he was nominated. And I still have my NRA membership, even after they sold out on bumpstocks.
As for this original issue, I believe it is every American’s right, at least those who have not been convicted of a felony, to keep and bear arms. I believe it is incumbent upon those of us who exercise this right to be trained and proficient, but I do not think the government has the moral right to tell me, you, or anyone that they cannot protect themselves with the most efficient tool they can obtain to do the job. I don’t think there’s Constitutional “latitude” to allow the government to require specific training nor licensing in order to exercise that right. That is what the 2A states and I am a firm believer that it is what the Founders intended. Fortunately for me, but unfortunate for my argument, I have not had a situation where I needed to argue my case before a court. And I pray that I never do.
3 Likes
I agree. I hope the new additions remain firm in the constitution. Welcome to the community @CabbageToad.
2 Likes
It didn’t take long for several firearms bills to be filed in the Kentucky legislature. There are two bills in the House requiring registration of handguns, “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” and make it a crime not to be registered. Add to that “safe storage” requirements, universal background checks, a special license for “assault weapons” and to REPEAL constitutional carry.
Luckily, both chambers of our General Assembly are under republican control but we now have a democrat governor who would gladly sign any of these bills.
2 Likes
Repeal the Constitution?
That is basically what they are attempting to do.
Virginia is in the throes of tyranny, with Governor Blackface Northam, dishonoring his oath of office to uphold the Constitution…
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
2 Likes
I’m traveling to the beautiful state of Colorado in September with a ccw from Kansas. I know I’m good to carry in National/State parks with the federal building restrictions. The write up below leaves me with questions on rules vs laws. My wife and I are driving the scenic routes with multiple stops, such as Cripple Creek casino and all those tourist things. Any advise on staying legal is appreciated.
Places Off-Limits Even With a Permit/License
permittee to use a handgun in a manner that would violate a provision of state law.
(b) A peace officer may temporarily disarm a permittee, incident to a lawful stop of the permittee. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the permittee prior to discharging the permittee from the scene.
(c) (I) a local government, including a special district, or the governing board of an institution of higher education, including the board of directors of The Auraria Higher Education Center, may enact an ordinance, resolution, rule, or other regulation that prohibits a permittee from carrying a concealed Handgun in a building or specific area within the local government’s or governing board’s jurisdiction, or for a special district, in a building or specific area under the direct control or management of the district, including a building or facility managed pursuant to an agreement between the district and a contractor. An ordinance, resolution, or other regulation prohibiting a permittee from carrying a concealed handgun may only impose a civil penalty for a violation and require the person to leave the premises. For a first offense, the ordinance, resolution, or other regulation may not impose a fine that exceeds fifty dollars and may not impose a sentence of incarceration. A person who does not leave the premises when required may be subject to criminal penalties.
(ii) If a local government or governing board prohibits carrying a concealed handgun in a building or specific area, the local government or governing board shall post signs at the public entrances to the building or specific area informing persons that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited in the building or specific area. The notice required by this section may be included on a sign describing open carry restrictions posted in accordance with section 29-11.7-104.
(2.5) A permit issued pursuant to this part 2 does not Authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun into a place where the carrying of concealed handguns is prohibited by a local ordinance, resolution, rule, or other regulation.
(3.5) a permit issued pursuant to this part does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun onto the real property, or into any improvements erected thereon, of a public college or university if the carrying of concealed handguns is prohibited by the governing board of the college or university. 2021 SB 21-256
This info was cut off the top.
Notice: More and more cities in Colorado are passing ordinances to ban the carry of firearms on some or all of their properties. City owned buildings, parks and other areas. The places must be posted. Do read all of 18-12-214 below especially part (c) (I) as the state gave the cities the authority to ban firearms on their properties.
18-12-214. Authority Granted by Permit - Carrying Restrictions Local Authority.
(1) (a) A permit to carry a concealed handgun authorizes the permittee to carry a concealed handgun in all
areas of the state, except as specifically limited in this section. A permit does not authorize the www.handgunlaw.us
The quagmire we are now engaged in discussing was intended to be averted by the constitution. It is ignoring the constitution and indulging in convoluted workarounds that are what we face now, also addressed in the constitution with the phrase " shall not be infringed".
The constitution was written with the knowledge that the freedom they were establishing for the people rests on a few key rights that had to be preserved if freedom was to be preserved.
It is a simple thing that those who do not want people to be free are attacking those rights to affectively nullify them.
No would be dictators will ever tell you they are doing these things to restrict and control you; they ALWAYS say it’s for safety or the greater good.
They have made exercising our God given, and constitutional rights, into an intensely complicated maze where the penalty for touching the sides, or making a wrong turn, are as catastrophic as they can possibly make them, up too, and including, malicious prosecutions on national display, in part, to serve notice and intimidate. If you can’t make it illegal, they reason, you can still make it AFFECTIVELY illegal by demonstrating a perceivable guarantee of unbearable harassment and threat should someone choose to exercise that right!
What we are discussing here is the navigation of a structure that has shifted the onus away from the government being required to have an existing just reason for denying a right or it’s FREE expression, to the citizen having to meet ever more stringent “proofs” that such reasons do not exist, prior to being able to express that right, and then in ever more restricted ways.
The sinister goal is to so narrow and restrict the exercising of the right in question, such that it is AFFECTIVELY nullified and rendered meaningless to the citizen.
A right, that requires a “permit” to exercise it, is no longer a right. It has now been established as being a privilege you must apply for and qualify for.
Clearly, this is not what the constitution calls for.
The supreme court absolutely should reject the ploy of, arguably temporarily, recalling the law, and rule on the obvious unconstitutionality of such blatant violations. Failure to do so nullifies the purpose of the court, and the constitution it exists to assure adherence too.
This is not some nuisance court battle the court should refuse to hear, this one is fundamental, and needs a constitutional ruling, if the constitution is to remain.