tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post2566907262567869691..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Do Rights Have Limits?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-45424311454534211102014-10-27T17:19:41.116+01:002014-10-27T17:19:41.116+01:00I was right. You were talking to someone else, not...I was right. You were talking to someone else, not me. Thanks for clearing that up. So we agree, amazing. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-5247850268148194002014-10-27T06:21:53.444+01:002014-10-27T06:21:53.444+01:00"If you were consistent, you would say that&#..."If you were consistent, you would say that's not an infringement. I call unnecessary ultrasounds, and unnecessary trips to an FFL as both being examples of infringements."<br /><br /> Thank you TS, that was exactly my point.<br />ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-13839615646132248672014-10-27T00:32:25.411+01:002014-10-27T00:32:25.411+01:00Steve, look at the level of scrutiny that you appl...Steve, look at the level of scrutiny that you apply to gun rights. You repeatedly say things like it is not an infringement if people can still get guns. But you don't apply that same scrutiny to abortion rights. In the example I gave, women can still get abortions- the law was just requiring an extra step. If you were consistent, you would say that's not an infringement. I call unnecessary ultrasounds, and unnecessary trips to an FFL as both being examples of infringements.TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-42693620281502761422014-10-27T00:12:40.540+01:002014-10-27T00:12:40.540+01:00That's not my position, or what I said, so eit...That's not my position, or what I said, so either you are talking to someone else, or lying again. Gee, which one is it? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-3094139950777089912014-10-26T18:08:11.353+01:002014-10-26T18:08:11.353+01:00"So you use an example which you agree is not..."So you use an example which you agree is not comparable and one you agree should not be used and is a Constitutional violation. Wow, great debating."<br /><br />I agree that it also an infringement, not that it is not comparable. It is comparable. What we see is progressives taking an any restriction goes "rights are not unlimited" stance for rights they dislike, but for rights they do approve up they take a hardline stance of every little thing being an infringement.<br />TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-52042299770161889352014-10-26T13:50:08.694+01:002014-10-26T13:50:08.694+01:00One of my points, which you guys objected to in yo...<i>One of my points, which you guys objected to in your knee-jerk way was that if a law is adopted through the proper legislative process, like the strict gun laws in NJ, then those laws do not violate due process.</i><br /><br />To argue that, Mikeb, you would need to argue that Chicago's (now thankfully extinct) handgun ban was <i>not</i> "adopted through the proper legislative process." Why? Because when the <a href="http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm" rel="nofollow">Supreme Court made clear</a> (by a convincing double digit percentage majority) that the ban was unconstitutional, it did so on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause:<br /><br /><i>In a five-four split decision, the McDonald Court held that an individual's right to keep and bear arms is incorporated and applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.</i><br /><br />Kurt '45superman' Hofmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14091930034162667742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-86617200994680093972014-10-26T11:32:41.357+01:002014-10-26T11:32:41.357+01:00This is not made up, but a summary of the law as i...This is not made up, but a summary of the law as it has been developed in other areas. As we have discussed before, the legal framework that allows licensing of drivers is that driving is a privilege, not a right, therefore you can be required to get a license to drive.<br /><br />Also, part of the issue is your insistence on May Issue permitting--to continue with the comparison to the licensing of driving, the ability to drive is closely tied to the right to travel--it is not necessary to be able to travel, but it is closely related, and so we have shall issue licensing.<br /><br />In another area, we have the permitting required for parading or for the use of public parks for large rallies. Relevant constitutional text: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, . . . or the right of the people to peacably assemble."<br /><br />We have allowed, under various tests, time, place, and manner restrictions for the preservation of order, but because of the Constitution's strong wording--no law abridging--we require that any such regulations be completely viewpoint neutral and NOT have any aspect of discretion--in other words, no may issue permitting. The reason is that any such discretionary permitting would be an unconstitutional abridgment or infringement on people's right.<br /><br />If we want to look at accepted places for "may issue" permitting under the law, we often find it in land use regulations, among some other areas. If you look at the challenges to "may issue" permitting that have been denied in these areas, you see that the rationale is that the subject of these permits is not something that the person has the Constitutional right to do. For example, you have the right to the enjoyment of your land, but if, when you bought your land, it was a vacant tract in an industrial park in the middle of a city and was already zoned for industrial use, you do NOT have the right to put in a hog farm. You might get a discretionary re-zoning, but you have no right to it.<br /><br />Finally, you keep calling for "reasonable restrictions" and implying that any "reasonable restriction" is ok. I made a comment earlier about how this shows a misunderstanding of the law, but let me explain the issue. We have multiple tests applied for finding whether laws are Constitutional or not. For a nice summary, check here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Interest Four paragraphs that will give you a good summary of the current state of the law and of the difference between the Rational basis test and Strict scrutiny. It doesn't get into Intermediate Scrutiny, but as you can guess, that is a test that falls between the two.<br /><br />It is true that the Supreme Court has not yet stated which test applies to the Second Amendment, but whenever we are dealing with any other right listed in the Bill of Rights, and the fundamental rights that have been found to exist even though not enumerated (e.g. right to privacy, right of parents to raise and educate their children, etc.) we apply strict scrutiny, so you are the one with the uphill battle to try to argue for even intermediate scrutiny, much less rational basis. A battle that will be made even harder if you wanted "May Issue" licensing rather than "shall issue" licensing for ownership since the Courts don't usually take kindly to the application of discretion to the exercise of rights.Mr. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-77448406674913577002014-10-26T10:50:06.380+01:002014-10-26T10:50:06.380+01:00"One of my points, which you guys objected to..."One of my points, which you guys objected to in your knee-jerk way was that if a law is adopted through the proper legislative process, like the strict gun laws in NJ, then those laws do not violate due process."<br /><br />This is categorically FALSE as a law passed through the legislative process can still violate substantive due process as I have explained repeatedly. You Really need to read up on due process law, Mike.<br /><br />As I have said repeatedly, New Jersey's courts have, until now, found that these laws do not violate due process, but that does not change the fact that your statement of the rules is incorrect.Mr. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-74236780293428498382014-10-26T09:57:42.978+01:002014-10-26T09:57:42.978+01:00" you ask for a system of may issue licensing..." you ask for a system of may issue licensing for the exercise of a right--this makes it no longer a right but a privilege that is licensed"<br /><br />That's made-up bullshit on your part. You call it a privilege rather than a right - that's your definition. If some day the law says you need to be licensed to own a gun, you could just as easily call it a right that has a reasonable restriction attached to it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-1899218947411761392014-10-26T09:50:40.870+01:002014-10-26T09:50:40.870+01:00TS said, " Due process is to ensure that peop...TS said, " Due process is to ensure that people actually broke that law before they are punished for it."<br /><br />Mr. A. said "The question remains whether the NJ laws violate due process"<br /><br />One of my points, which you guys objected to in your knee-jerk way was that if a law is adopted through the proper legislative process, like the strict gun laws in NJ, then those laws do not violate due process. They can be changed later, but during their time on the books, due process is met. All that's for Mr. A.<br /><br />TS seems to be talking about something else. Of course the failure to follow due process can result in people who are not guilty of something being arrested or even convicted. What's that got to do with anything?<br /><br />But what you can't do is cry that due process is not met because you don't like a particular law. <br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-53673272497144522052014-10-25T23:36:18.013+02:002014-10-25T23:36:18.013+02:00So you use an example which you agree is not compa...So you use an example which you agree is not comparable and one you agree should not be used and is a Constitutional violation. Wow, great debating.<br />Yet I simply agree background checks should be done before buying a gun and whatever that waiting period is it is not a violation of any Constitutional right. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-24281812750602308552014-10-25T21:26:00.755+02:002014-10-25T21:26:00.755+02:00You don't realize that the abortion procedure ...You don't realize that the abortion procedure itself involves shoving instruments into private parts? <br /><br />But I want to be clear that I don’t support those laws. It is an unnecessary infringement meant to dissuade abortions. You asked for examples of restrictions that apply similarly to abortions, so I provided.<br />TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-92036533100213828002014-10-25T18:22:32.756+02:002014-10-25T18:22:32.756+02:00The only reason I support waiting periods is to gi...The only reason I support waiting periods is to give law enforcement time to do back ground checks. I would agree we should have a system (21st century) that could do that immediately. <br />Comparing abortion to guns is disingenuous. If you want to compare getting a gun and regulations for that, to some intrusive physical procedure women are forced to have before getting an abortion, that's your silliness. When gun buyers are forced to have an instrument shoved up their private parts before they can buy a gun, then we will have a similar violation to debate. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-71666237633797327422014-10-25T17:10:47.369+02:002014-10-25T17:10:47.369+02:00I said May-issue is not due process. Then you sai...I said May-issue is not due process. Then you said as long as it is passed through the legislative process it is (as opposed to what- an edict by the king?)TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43354880151884857172014-10-25T16:19:44.512+02:002014-10-25T16:19:44.512+02:001. That is still not what you said in the previous...1. That is still not what you said in the previous comment we took issue with.<br /><br />2. That still only accounts for a portion of the due process analysis--The question remains whether the NJ laws violate due process, for example, by placing overly harsh penalties on the supposed "crimes" and if they unjustly criminalize actions that should not be criminalized. Thus far the relevant courts have let the laws stand, but that doesn't change the fact that the analysis is much deeper than you let on.Mr. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-47872268737413925262014-10-25T12:44:00.126+02:002014-10-25T12:44:00.126+02:00As I said, there are two separate issues. In NJ fo...As I said, there are two separate issues. In NJ for example, strict gun laws have been legitimately adopted. Then when one of the NRA poster boys or girls violates those laws, due process is followed. What's so hard about that?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-51621078838303993472014-10-25T08:59:49.591+02:002014-10-25T08:59:49.591+02:00Another would be the transvaginal ultrasound manda...Another would be the transvaginal ultrasound mandates that showed up recently. If you are going to say this below, you can't really call that an infringment either:<br /><br />"The problem anon is you define those regulations as infringements and they are not."TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43098222397874731962014-10-25T04:48:48.560+02:002014-10-25T04:48:48.560+02:00Ditto ^^^Ditto ^^^TShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04667036856347626234noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-68978440414932374372014-10-25T04:47:57.349+02:002014-10-25T04:47:57.349+02:00"I can't think of a gun restriction that ... "I can't think of a gun restriction that applies similarly to abortions."<br /><br /> One that comes immediately to mind is a waiting period for the purchase of handguns. Gun control advocates also like to use the term "cooling off period" suggesting that someone who wants to purchase a gun when they're angry might change their mind after time to "cool off".<br /> Waiting period legislation has also been proposed for those wanting an abortion in hopes that the person will change their mind.<br /><br /> "A new Missouri law requiring a 72-hour abortion waiting period is set to take effect this week, and the state's only licensed abortion clinic isn't planning to try to stop it."<br /><br />"Although Planned Parenthood officials have denounced the Missouri law as "onerous" and "burdensome" for women, the organization isn't planning to file a lawsuit before the measure takes effect Friday."<br /><br /> http://news.yahoo.com/no-challenge-expected-missouri-abortion-law-152711721.html;_ylt=AwrBEiSzDktURhYAXQ_QtDMD<br /><br /> Of course, when gun rights advocates make the same claim we're told the delay isn't a big deal.ssgmarkcrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14480230040370709682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-86279295466475821812014-10-24T19:53:11.623+02:002014-10-24T19:53:11.623+02:00What are you saying SS? I can't think of a gun...What are you saying SS? I can't think of a gun restriction that applies similarly to abortions. Maybe you could be more clear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-18666911249769575102014-10-24T19:40:56.174+02:002014-10-24T19:40:56.174+02:00I prefer it keeps the different government arms in...I prefer it keeps the different government arms in check. That's the way it was/is designed to work. Without the means of checks and balances that is ultimately the voice of the people, the people would have no voice, no representation and the result is authoritarian rule. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are rules that all law makers have to follow so that authoritarian rule could not happen. Of course even in the beginning there were law makers that found that there were constraints on them and didn't like it but that's the world created for us in the USA and has been working well for the most part since. The justices had to rule whether certain or any law being challenged met the Constitutional muster. If it did not, it was thrown out, like we have seen here lately.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-1518227641555829482014-10-24T09:59:05.888+02:002014-10-24T09:59:05.888+02:00As for the accusation of name calling, I was descr...As for the accusation of name calling, I was describing your arguments, not calling you names. Similarly, the statements about Anonymous were opinion based on his deliberate obtuseness. A claim, such as he made, that regulations on the exercise of a right in no way limits the right, especially when made in the context of a discussion on the limits that do exist on rights, is patently nonsensical.Mr. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-78523314418066925922014-10-24T09:49:51.671+02:002014-10-24T09:49:51.671+02:00I've addressed your licensing and registration...I've addressed your licensing and registration requirements above--in short, you ask for a system of may issue licensing for the exercise of a right--this makes it no longer a right but a privilege that is licensed, by definition, at the pleasure of a state actor. It's hard to see how someone could consider this to not be an infringement on the right, even if they thought that it was an acceptable infringement.<br /><br />As for your safe storage proposals, as I and others have repeatedly said, our problem is not with the encouragement of safe storage but with your chosen means--prosecution of theft victims. This isn't even a second amendment issue. Instead, my problem with it is a matter of basic justice and due process. Other issues are that many of these proposals include police inspections with little or no notice, further weakening the already battered and abused 4th Amendment.Mr. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-23540173855540589032014-10-24T09:35:06.281+02:002014-10-24T09:35:06.281+02:00Really? You know that, Mike? Then why did you po...Really? You know that, Mike? Then why did you post this up above?<br /><br />Mike B October 23, 2014 at 7:28 AM<br />TS, any law which is adopted through the proper legislative process would satisfy the requirements of due process.Mr. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-63564997225996132352014-10-24T08:37:29.935+02:002014-10-24T08:37:29.935+02:00Mr. Anonymous, I'm getting a little tired of y...Mr. Anonymous, I'm getting a little tired of your repetitious bullshit and name calling. I'm sad and I'm sloppy, etc., etc. Anonymous is not "honest and informed on the subject" and has "a complete lack of understanding of the law."<br /><br />How would requiring safe storage in the home infringe upon your rights? For that matter, how would licensing and registration requirements and background checks on all transfers infringe on them?<br /><br />Try to be brief and specific in your answer.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.com