Rights Aren't Rights - If They Can Be Taken Away

I believe George Carlin did a bit about this. In any case, if anyone disputes this, research FDR’s gold confiscation policy in the '30s, and his internment of the Japanese during WWII. George Takei was a child at the time - these people - sent to isolated camps in CA, OR, and WA - were imprisoned with nothing but the clothes on their backs, and lost everything - jobs, cars, homes, and businesses. Canada and even Mexico followed similar policies. And now we’re still treated as mindless sheep!

1 Like

I also like to remind that Rights aren’t Rights if you have to ask for prior written permission and be granted a hall pass to exercise them (IE, carry permits)

9 Likes

Ran into one in Southern Utah, there’s a fence, some footings and a small plaque.

3 Likes

Rights without responsibilities is anarchy. Society without compromise is civil war. Neither anarchy, nor civil war have any place in America.

2 Likes

anarchy-talladega

1 Like

wow. I need to check this out next time I visiting family there. Thx!

1 Like

Well, not exactly. Working in the criminal justice system I see many people who have lost their rights because of the crimes they have committed because they have been adjudicated with certain metal defects. Prisons and jails are full of people who have had their rights taken away from them.
Likewise, many rights conflict with other persons rights. For instance, a property owner’s property rights outweigh most peoples individual rights. You can exercise all the rights you like walking down the street, but most of your rights end at my property line. You do not have the right of free speech, freedom or religion, to assemble, or even to bear arms once you step foot on my property unless I allow you to exercise those rights on my property. The same principals apply to commercial properties. The Bill of Rights protects people from violations of rights by the government without due process.

4 Likes

Right right, I read an implicit “if they can be taken away [without due process]”, as being convicted of a crime certainly is a thing.

1 Like

I am interested to know how you define “due process”. Do you consider an elected “representative” legislature passing laws to be due process?

2 Likes

Conviction of a crime following due process as laid out in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

1 Like

The legislative process is also laid out in the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law; anything and everything done under it is a legal matter. So if a legislature passes laws which infringe on an originalist interpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, that right has been legally and enforcably diminished.

Legislatures pass unconstitutional laws with disturbing frequency, hence State and federal Supreme Courts. But until such laws are overturned, repealed, or superceded, due process has occurred, and the laws must be obeyed.

Case in point: Texas is a Constitutional Carry State, yet they have a law which supports a property owner being able to nullify the right to carry by simply posting a sign saying carry is not allowed on that property. If you violate that law you risk losing your right to carry altogether. This is a legally sanctioned infringement of the 2nd Ammendment. And until someone volunteers to become a test case, it will remain so.

Your reply to the attorney’s post (which clearly illustrated an example of infringement legally imposed on individual liberty) seems to indicate that you support conditional (in cases of criminal prosecutorial judgement) legal due process even when it removes the 2nd Ammendment right. The fact is this: nowhere in this country that I know of is your insistence that the 2nd Ammendment right to keep and bear arms stand completely without infringement the de facto reality.

I am by no means saying we should stop fighting infringement. But I have always said, and will continue to say that reasonable and responsible compromise is the best we can expect.

Arguing the principles of liberty is noble and right. Doing so intelligently and responsibly is more so, and the only legally effective means of limiting or reversing infringement. The opponents of the 2nd Ammendment have chipped away at our right little by little with relentless but entirely legal effort. We will only get our liberty back the same way it has been lost.

1 Like

I see it different.

Private property Rights are a thing. Violate them at your peril.

1 Like

One thing that is hammered into the those attending law school is that “words have meaning.” I recommend you read the Heller case and see what SCOTUS says about the history of the right to bear arms before 2A was ratified and how that limits the boundaries of 2A. If it would not have been an infringement in 1791, it is not an infringement today.

Also, look at the differences between the 1st and 2nd Amendments. 1A is extremely clear that “Congress shall make no law” with respect to religion, speech, press, to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. 2A is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
“Shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” do not mean the same thing. I wish 2A said “shall make no law” because things would be a hell of a lot clearer. Under the common law rules of statutory construction, laws can be made regarding the right to bear arms, however, they cannot infringe the right as it existed when 2A was ratified. The Court has clearly said that concealed carry can be regulated and even banned.

As for the Texas law regarding carrying on private property, the bill of right only apply to the government or persons acting on behalf of the government. The Constitution provides no protection when you step onto my property. I can prohibit any speech I do not want to hear, you are not entitled to assemble, peaceably or otherwise, you cannot exercise your religious practices, or petition me to redress your grievances unless I agree to extend those rights to you. And, if I do, I can shut you down at anytime I like for any reason or for no reason at all. The same is true of the 2A. I can let you on my property with a firearm or I can keep you off if you have a firearm. I can even go so far as letting anyone I want on my property but exclude anyone with red hair. My property rights far exceed your non-existent right to be on my property unless I allow you on my property and I can make you leave whenever I want.

6 Likes

Thank you as always for the input of an actual attorney

3 Likes

I have long been looking for a good, unbiased history on the 2nd Amendment. I have a few, but it seems like they always get distracted by modern politics than by how the 2nd Amendment was written and interpreted over time.

1 Like