Blueshell
Banned
*don't
Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
- Status
B
Bikenut
Guest
Kindly explain how my quoting definitions of infringements/encroachments back up your argument.
Seeya
New member
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137: “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
FRAUD CITES - Caselaw to use in court
Do some research, I gave you a start.
Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105: “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 373 US 262: “If the state converts a liberty into a privilege, the citizen can engage in the right with impunity.”
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.”
Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425: “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”
Miller v. U.S., 230 F.2d. 486, 489: “The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Mattox v. U.S., 156 US 237, 243: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in the light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.”
S. Carolina v. U.S., 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905): “The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
FRAUD CITES - Caselaw to use in court
Do some research, I gave you a start.
Blueshell
Banned
Certainly. This is about TacticalWalls and similar products, not firearms. The Second Amendment doesn't apply.
I haven't advocated taking a firearm away. I advocate avoiding unauthorized use. What I advocate removing from the market are these silly gadgets that encourage people to leave their guns just laying around; or, that these things have some kind of lock on them.
You keeping your gun under your 'positive control' is not an encroachment or violation by someone else. It's just you exerting control over your things. You have no enumerated right to own the tissue box in OP. If the state came in and said "no more tissue-box", it's not even a Second Amendment issue unless you're prepared to argue that this tissue box is an 'arm'.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Are you saying I do not have a right to "keep" an arm in a tissue box?
Are you arguing that only the ways of "keeping" that you personally consider reasonable, appropriate, and acceptable are the only ways that should be allowed?
Blueshell
Banned
You have a right keep arms, you do not have a right to keep tissue boxes.
The state is well within it's rights to designate a product hazardous to the public and remove it from the market, and it does this all the time with safety recalls, and tort & class-action lawsuits.
Blueshell
Banned
Which of these refer to tissue boxes?
Blueshell
Banned
Of course. Your firearm should be either on your person, or locked. Define for yourself what 'locked' means. In a locked car, in a locked room, in a lock box, in a safe...when I store my revolver in my bag at work it's just trigger locked. I even keep it loaded. That's about where I set the bar.
Blueshell
Banned
I am a terrible speller, though. I rely on spell-check a lot. If you watch my spelling habits you may note when I'm posting from my PC, which has a great spell-checker, or from my Droid, KitKat has a horrible spell-checker. If you know of where I can pick up a better spell-checker for KitKat I would love to give it a shot; it must play well with Tapatalk, however.
B
Bikenut
Guest
Incorrect. I have a right to "keep" an arm in any way I damn well please. Including in tissue boxes.
Blueshell
Banned
The Second Amendment regards arms. Are you arguing that tissue boxes are 'arms', or are you citing a different amendment?
B
Bikenut
Guest
And with that response you show that you do not understand what a right is but want other people to adhere to the standards that you personally consider reasonable, appropriate, and acceptable.
Apparently you think that the right to keep an arm needs to be only allowed to the arm being locked up or on your person. You do understand that you are advocating for the infringement that other people's right to keep arms be limited to only what you personally think is Ok?
B
Bikenut
Guest
I am arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify any method of keeping therefor all methods of keeping are the right to keep. Are you arguing that you, or someone in authority, should have the power to decide what methods of keeping are not allowed?
Since you are saying I should not be allowed to keep a gun in a tissue box are you going to tell me that I should not be allowed to keep a gun just laying on the kitchen table in plain view? Or a shotgun leaning in the corner?
Blueshell
Banned
The Second Amendment doesn't specify "arms", either, that doesn't mean you get to own ordinance even though militias of the day used privately owned and funded cannons. Any limitation placed upon the second amendment must follow the rules, that's what "shale not be infringed" means. In this case it's the Strict Scrutiny standard.
Someone in authority already has that power. The legislature and the Supreme Court. Your question of "should" is mute.
Unless locked or disabled; a trigger lock or a bolt removed, for example, yes. Either on your person, or locked. I've been nothing but clear on that point. On your person, or locked.
This thread is not about firearms. This thread is about storage devices. You have no right to any given storage device for the question of 'rights' to then apply. This is not a second amendment issue.
bofh
Banned
Please show me in my earlier posts where I advocate having laws telling you HOW to exercise YOUR RIGHTS? I can ridicule anyone's choices, as it is my right. So can you. You want me to be politically correct, because you fear that my political incorrectness may be used by someone else to justify a stupid law. Watch this video and learn:
James Yeager | Stupid Internet Gun Stuff - The "Gun Community"
My free speech does not infringe upon your rights whatsoever. If you believe otherwise, you are the problem.
Blueshell
Banned
Mr. Yeager banned me from his Facebook page for calling him out over his "I'm gona kill people" video.
Granted I did it 32+ times over a year but he never responded so I regard it as valid.
I also go to these "militias" that take part in ******** like the Bundey Ranch and challenge them on their use of children, ask who is their commanding officer (they don't have one, which means they aren't a militia no matter how many times they print t-shirts with that word in their name).
I have clinically diagnosed OCD and I know how to use it
I'm gonna go along with the guys who said 'it depends on your situation'. I live alone and my gf visits now and then. I also work from home, so am home 80% of the time. I don't really see a need to hide my gun at home - it usually sits on my desk during the day, and in a holster beside my bed at night.
I noticed the picture of the tissue box with gun in it seems custom made for that particular gun and that the magazine is not in the gun and that the gun wouldn't fit in the tissue box frame with the magazine in it. So... if the home is broken into, not only does the person who owns the gun need to get it out of the tissue box, he / she would also need to insert the magazine and pull back on the slide to load the gun before it would be ready to fire. Maybe not a problem in many situations, but at a time when it's critical those extra steps could be the difference between the bad guy shooting me or me shooting the bad guy.
I noticed the picture of the tissue box with gun in it seems custom made for that particular gun and that the magazine is not in the gun and that the gun wouldn't fit in the tissue box frame with the magazine in it. So... if the home is broken into, not only does the person who owns the gun need to get it out of the tissue box, he / she would also need to insert the magazine and pull back on the slide to load the gun before it would be ready to fire. Maybe not a problem in many situations, but at a time when it's critical those extra steps could be the difference between the bad guy shooting me or me shooting the bad guy.
B
Bikenut
Guest
WOW!!!! You acknowledge that the right to keep arms included cannons but then say "Shall not be infringed" means the legislature and Supreme Court (also known as "the government") gets to decide how it shall be infringed by instituting the standard of Strict Scrutiny? Are you serious? "Shall not be infringed" means exactly what it says.... the government shall not institute any limitations, conditions, or restrictions upon the right to keep and bear arms. Just because all those infringements have happened doesn't make it right... but it does mean that entirely too many folks have fallen for the idea that rights can be restricted to the definition of what those in authority consider to be "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable". What is sad is that so many gun owners think that is just fine simply because they agree with the restrictions.
And you telling me I should not be allowed to keep a gun in plain view on my kitchen table or have a shotgun leaning in the corner shows you are not interested in rights but are only interested in being in control of how other people keep arms. That puts you in the same league as any other anti gunner... actually it puts you in a much worse category... that of a gun owner who supports anti gunners goals.
Sorry Blueshell, but your views are definitely anti right to keep arms in any way other than the way you say should be allowed... exactly like every other anti rights anti gunner.
Bottom line is quite simple... I, and everyone else, have the right to keep an arm in any manner we wish including on the kitchen table, leaning in the corner, or hidden inside a tissue box because it isn't about the tissue box, the kitchen table, or the corner... it is about the right to keep an arm without having the infringement of someone saying how it is... or how it isn't ......... allowed.
By the way, you are ignoring the simple fact that some other people don't have children, don't have children visiting, or if they do have children visiting they put the tissue box with the gun in it away during the visit.. in short you are attempting to push your own beliefs and criteria onto everyone else with a very broad brush. Which is the same attitude of any good anti right to keep arms anti gunner.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
And your idiotic post that I first replied to didn't leave any room for any caveats. It was stated as a statement of "fact" which you posted in response to someone saying nearly the same thing I said:
And this sub-thread of the OP started because of this:
To which I say, "No, and quit barking out orders that don't apply to lots of folks who happen to own guns."
I will be sure to bookmark this thread and come back and apologize for my impertinence should a "kid" ever get his/her hands on one or more of my guns. Until then, arguing with me (or anyone else) over individual sets of circumstances that you couldn't possibly know a single thing about just makes you look stupid. You have no say-so over how others store their weapons, and even less knowledge about how safe or not their storage practices are for them.
Blues
- Status
