In article <481beed6$1$30501$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
"Herb Martin" <news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Larry" <x@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:x-F5780A.22462202052008@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > In article <H8QSj.107$aA1.29@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > "Scout" <me4guns@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >
>
>
> >> Quite right. I accept your admission that ANY violation of our rights
is
> >> contrary to the language of the Constitution.
> >>
> >> There. Happy?
> >>
> >> I mean I was willing to give you a little slack, but seems you want
to
> >> hold
> >> me right to the letter of the Constitution.
> >
> > Why can't I go to the governor's mansion and protest in his bedroom?
I
> > mean, I have the right to free speech, and not letting me speak in his
> > bedroom is a violation of my rights!
>
> You really have wasted your father's money on a substandard education
> if you don't know this one OR if you don't know that it doesn't apply.
>
> There is a difference between a relevant point and mere fallacious
> argument, but someone lawyers never seem to understand this
> fact.
>
> Your rights end where my right begin.
>
> You CAN go and protest, just not necessarily WHERE you choose
> if it violates someone elses rights unreasonably.
So it's not just whether my exercise of rights violates someone else's
rights, it is whether it unreasonably violates their rights?
You keep moving the target.
> I have already suggested that you might look to the Right to Peacably
> Assemble for just the type of infringements that are in fact within
> the bounds of the Constitution.
>
> You cannot break into my house to eat, sleep, speak, or use your RKBA
> either, but that doesn't prevent your from exercising your rights on
your
> own property or in public areas.
How about the lobby of a federal building at 3am? That's public
property. I don't see how anyone else's rights are affected. Yet they
lock the darn doors at night. That violates my rights!
>
> You cannot be stopped from "assembling" on the mere pretext of
> "public safety" but you can be made to conform with fire marshall
> laws to do so safely.
>
> Parade permits are (possibly) legal, but they MUST be issued
> to EVERYONE fairly, and the mere fact that a permit is required
> for (demonstrable) safety reasons CANNOT be used to prevent
> the Free Speech or Freedom to Assemble you enjoy.
So I can only exercise my rights in a way that the government declares
to be a safe way of doing so. Do you see how far you've come in just
this one post?
> Laws that require Concealed Carry (CHL etc) permits MIGHT be
> written so as to be constitutional but I don't know of any except that
> in Alaska.
You don't know of any state with CC permit laws, with CCP laws that have
been ruled constitutional by the courts, or with CCP laws that *you*
deem to be constitutional?
> Certainly no one has shown that they provide any useful public
> safety function. Feel free to try if you wish.
Why would I bother? This has as much relevance to the validity of the
laws as the "strict scrutiny" nonsense.
> None of the CDC, the National Academy of Sciences, nor DoJ
> was able to find that ANY gun control reduces VIOLENT CRIME,
> SUICIDE or ACCIDENTS in any significant manner.
So what? 55MPH wasn't introduced as a safety measure either, but it was
a valid law (and still is, in some places). That a different course of
action is better does not make a law invalid - its a political question,
not a legal one.
> Whenever gun control laws are reviewed, they always come out as
> either making "no difference" or actually making crime, murder,
> etc WORSE.
>
> Either way, they cannot meet the test -- apparently.
Well then, its unfortunate for you that they don't have to in order to
be legal.
|
