Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[Blueshell]

It would appear you really are unable to comprehend the difference.

"To limit" vs "is limited", as I've been saying for weeks now.

You seem to think that observing the sky to be blue means you colored the sky blue. I'm not sure how to get past that level of intellectual depravity.

When SCOTUS said "no right is unlimited" that was not SCOTUS limiting rights, that was SCOTUS observing how rights already exist. The RKBA likewise is limited, and saying that doesn't mean I'm limiting it. You observe one such limit in a prohibition against murder. That simple acknowledgment debases the majority of your posts on this thread.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
It would appear you really are unable to comprehend the difference.

"To limit" vs "is limited", as I've been saying for weeks now.

You seem to think that observing the sky to be blue means you colored the sky blue. I'm not sure how to get past that level of intellectual depravity.

When SCOTUS said "no right is unlimited" that was not SCOTUS limiting rights, that was SCOTUS observing how rights already exist. The RKBA likewise is limited, and saying that doesn't mean I'm limiting it. You observe one such limit in a prohibition against murder. That simple acknowledgment debases the majority of your posts on this thread.

"To limit" means to impose a limit. "Is limited" means the limit has already been imposed. Either way a limit is an infringement since, as I have been citing and linking to for quite some time:

infringe: definition of infringe in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

infringe
-snip-
Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on:
Bold added by me for emphasis..........

When the government, and the Supreme Court IS part of the government, passes or upholds a law that imposes limits on how arms are kept (like tissue boxes are not allowed on the market) then the government is infringing upon the right to keep arms since the right to keep arms is unlimited (recognized by the words "shall not be infringed") but those who cause harm while keeping their arms should suffer consequences for the harm caused.

If a person who has no children uses their right to "keep" their pistol by storing it in a tissue box and no harm ever results from that then there should be no consequences because there was no harm. However, if a person who has children, or is in an environment where children are, uses their right to "keep" their pistol by storing it in a tissue box and a child takes that pistol and shoots someone then the person who was storing their pistol where children had access should suffer consequences for the harm the child caused.

But if the government, with the support of some who say they support the right to keep arms, imposes the limit that there will be consequences for the mere act of keeping their pistol in a tissue box then the government is infringing upon the right to keep arms.

In short, put limits on what amount of harm is allowed not limit the method of keeping.

If my belief that the right to keep arms is unlimited is intellectual depravity then those who wrote and ratified the words "shall not be infringed" must have also been intellectually depraved.

 

[Blueshell]

"Is limited" means the limit has already been imposed.

The sky "is blue", that doesn't mean someone made the sky blue.

"Is limited" does not mean anyone imposed any limit. Remember that the default state of rights is of non-existence because the only Natural Law is survival of the fittest and that law doesn't extend any creature any rights at all. When a social contract creates a right, it defines that right and the right "is limited" while nothing imposed limits.

Regardless of your beliefs to the contrary, Strict Scrutiny is the standard and a minimal safe storage law would survive it.

 

[DavidWhite]

Natural rights, by definition, are inalienable. Natural rights cannot be willfully surrendered nor forcibly taken away. If something cannot be taken away, there would be no law against taking it away. Such a law would serve no purpose given that the offence would be impossible to commit in the first place.

Ironically every law written to protect natural rights is a proof that natural rights don't exist.

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Blueshell]

Unconstitutional Official Acts

16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256:

The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be In agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The General rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.....

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the lend, it is superseded thereby.

No one Is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

Jon Roland:

Strictly speaking, an unconstitutional statute is not a "law", and should not be called a "law", even if it is sustained by a court, for a finding that a statute or other official act is constitutional does not make it so, or confer any authority to anyone to enforce it.

All citizens and legal residents of the United States, by their presence on the territory of the United States, are subject to the militia duty, the duty of the social compact that creates the society, which requires that each, alone and in concert with others, not only obey the Constitution and constitutional official acts, but help enforce them, if necessary, at the risk of one's life.

Any unconstitutional act of an official will at least be a violation of the oath of that official to execute the duties of his office, and therefore grounds for his removal from office. No official immunity or privileges of rank or position survive the commission of unlawful acts. If it violates the rights of individuals, it is also likely to be a crime, and the militia duty obligates anyone aware of such a violation to investigate it, gather evidence for a prosecution, make an arrest, and if necessary, seek an indictment from a grand jury, and if one is obtained, prosecute the offender in a court of law.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Right, and Strict Scrutiny is what determines if a law regarding a specifically enumerated right is constitutional or not. A minimal safe storage law would survive Strict Scrutiny, would thus be constitutional, and thus enforceable.

 

[DavidWhite]

Right, and Strict Scrutiny is what determines if a law regarding a specifically enumerated right is constitutional or not. A minimal safe storage law would survive Strict Scrutiny, would thus be constitutional, and thus enforceable.

So which gun control group did you say you work for? I missed it..

Link Removed


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
"Is limited" means the limit has already been imposed.

"is limited" does not mean anyone imposed any limit. Remember that the default state of rights is of non-existence. When a social contract creates a right, it defines the attributes of that right. A right "is limited" and nothing imposed limits.

The sky "is blue", that doesn't mean someone made the sky blue.

Incorrect. The default state of rights is everyone, every human being, has rights just because they are born a human being.

"Is limited" means there is a limit imposed. Doesn't matter if the standard imposed by some entity made up of people is a Social Contract, Intermediate Scrutiny, or Strict Scrutiny, the fact remains some someones are imposing a limit is still an infringement.

I will humor your attempted example of the sky being blue:

The sky "is blue" most certainly means there is a limit upon the color of the sky simply because someone first had to define the color of the sky as being "blue" and it is the person(s) who decided to call the color of the sky "blue" that limited the color of the sky to being "blue". Not "brown" or "green" but limited the color of the sky to being "blue". When the first person decided the sky was blue they limited the color to being blue. But the sky's color really is unlimited until some sentient being decides to limit that color to what ever they say it is. But then I have been talking about rights that people have and not trying to bolster my argument with talking about things that do not have rights, like the sky, in the first place. Although perhaps realizing that it is people who put limits on things might help understand what limits on rights are.

And when the government limits rights by making the sale of tissue boxes intended for keeping a firearm hidden then the government is limiting the right to keep an arm by hiding it in a tissue box.

A limit is an infringement. Anything that undermines a right is an infringement. Anything that encroaches upon a right is an infringement.

The most easily understood infringement is the government limiting the right to bear arms by needing the government's permission in the form of a permit slip to bear an arm in a concealed manner that the government uses to control who is, but most importantly who is NOT, allowed to bear arms in a concealed manner.

 

[Bikenut]

Food for thought that doesn't involve pie in the sky tangents.

Natural Rights - Constitutional Rights Foundation

The Declaration of Independence and Natural Rights

-snip-
Natural Rights

The members of the Continental Congress made only two minor changes in the opening paragraphs of Jefferson's draft declaration. In these two paragraphs, Jefferson developed some key ideas: "all men are created equal," "inalienable rights," "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Where did Jefferson get these ideas?

-snip-
Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.
-snip-

And the right to keep arms (like a pistol hidden in a tissue box) is part of the original 3 natural, or inalienable, rights since one must be able to keep and bear arms (even if the type/sophistication of "arms" changes as time goes by) in order to protect life, liberty, and to ensure the ability to pursue happiness.

Edited to add...
Before anyone comes up with the idea that the Constitution itself is a Social Contract it most certainly IS a contract that recognizes people have natural rights and the government agreed not to mess with the rights of the people when it signed onto that contract. It is NOT a contract, social or otherwise, where the government gives rights to the people nor is it a contract that says the government can use some standard, some Social Contract or level of scrutiny, to mess with the natural rights of the people.

 

[Blueshell]

So which gun control group did you say you work for? I missed it..

Link Removed


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If by gun control you mean proper training, as our founders did, then I 'work' for the NRA. Otherwise my money and efforts go towards repealing any and all laws which cannot survive Strict Scrutiny, which is most of them.

 

[Blueshell]

Incorrect. The default state of rights is everyone, every human being, has rights just because they are born a human being.

You have to be born into a society in order for that to apply, further proving that a social compact is required for rights to exist.

"Is limited" means there is a limit imposed. Doesn't matter if the standard imposed by some entity made up of people is a Social Contract, Intermediate Scrutiny, or Strict Scrutiny, the fact remains some someones are imposing a limit is still an infringement.

The levels of Scrutiny are a test of the law, not of the right.

The sky "is blue" most certainly means there is a limit upon the color of the sky simply because someone first had to define the color of the sky as being "blue" and it is the person(s) who decided to call the color of the sky "blue" that limited the color of the sky to being "blue".

Earth's atmosphere scattered light between 430 to 750 trillion hertz for millions of years before humans came around. Man didn't come along and impose any limits, because man didn't even exist.

And when the government limits rights by making the sale of tissue boxes intended for keeping a firearm hidden then the government is limiting the right to keep an arm by hiding it in a tissue box.

No right extends to negligence resulting in harm to others, likewise the RKBA doesn't extend to negligent storage methods resulting in prohibited persons having unauthorized access.

A limit is an infringement. Anything that undermines a right is an infringement. Anything that encroaches upon a right is an infringement.

If you want that to be true then you will have to separate from this social contract (renouncing US citizenship) and establish your own (found your own country), declaring such; but even then your 'unlimited' right will be naturally limited by your geographical borders.

The most easily understood infringement is the government limiting the right to bear arms by needing the government's permission in the form of a permit slip to bear an arm in a concealed manner that the government uses to control who is, but most importantly who is NOT, allowed to bear arms in a concealed manner.

A permit to exercise a right is appropriate when it involves using a public resource. The permit's function is to ensure no one abuses the resource. Carrying a firearm does not consume a public resource so therefore permits to carry a firearm are inappropriate. Such laws need to be removed.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Life, liberty and property can all be taken or given away, thus inalienable rights don't exist and Locke was wrong.

 

[Firefighterchen]

If by gun control you mean proper training, as our founders did, then I 'work' for the NRA. Otherwise my money and efforts go towards ... all laws which ... survive Strict Scrutiny...

NRA and it all falls into place.

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Blueshell]

NRA and it all falls into place.

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Incorrect. The default state of rights is everyone, every human being, has rights just because they are born a human being.

You have to be born into a society in order for that to apply, further proving that a social compact is required for rights to exist.-snip-

Rights are the things humans are born with regardless of whether there is a society, a social compact, or even a government. Societies and government do not give rights or define them. Societies and governments define what infringements (limits) on rights are considered reasonable, appropriate, and acceptable using standards called social contracts and levels of scrutiny.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
"Is limited" means there is a limit imposed. Doesn't matter if the standard imposed by some entity made up of people is a Social Contract, Intermediate Scrutiny, or Strict Scrutiny, the fact remains some someones are imposing a limit is still an infringement.-snip-

The levels of Scrutiny are a test of the law, not of the right.

The levels of Strict Scrutiny are nothing more than a standard the government invented in order to validate what laws that inflict limits (infringements) upon the right the government considers justified.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
The sky "is blue" most certainly means there is a limit upon the color of the sky simply because someone first had to define the color of the sky as being "blue" and it is the person(s) who decided to call the color of the sky "blue" that limited the color of the sky to being "blue".

Earth's atmosphere scattered light between 430 to 750 trillion hertz for millions of years before humans came around. Man didn't come along and impose any limits, because man didn't even exist.-snip-

Yes, the earth's atmosphere scattered light for millions of years but when the first human decided the color of the sky would be known as blue then that human limited the color of the sky to being blue. The limit imposed was blue which means the color will not be known as red or green or yellow but only limited to blue.

 

[Blueshell]

...but when the first human decided the color of the sky would be known as blue then that human limited the color of the sky to being blue. ...

Complete and total ********.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And when the government limits rights by making the sale of tissue boxes intended for keeping a firearm hidden then the government is limiting the right to keep an arm by hiding it in a tissue box.

No right extends to negligence resulting in harm to others, likewise the RKBA doesn't extend to negligent storage methods resulting in prohibited persons having unauthorized access.-snip-

The RKBA means people have the right to use any and all methods of storage. It is you who supports the government limiting that right by making storage devices that you consider negligent illegal on the market. Not only that you would strip people of the right altogether by labeling them as "prohibited persons" according to your standards of who should not be allowed to have the right.

As for using the right to keep arms resulting in harm to others... I have explained many times that folks should be held accountable if the method of keeping results in the harm of others but there is a difference in the keeping and the harming. It is that difference you seem to not comprehend so here is an example.

I have the right to keep an arm by using the method of storage of leaning a rifle against the wall in the living room or hiding a pistol in a tissue box. If no child comes along and uses that rifle or pistol to cause harm then no harm resulted from the method of keeping I used. If a child does come along then I should suffer a penalty for keeping my rifle or pistol in an irresponsible manner. But it isn't the keeping by leaning against the wall or hiding in a tissue box that is irresponsible... it is being irresponsible (negligent) where a child is concerned.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
A limit is an infringement. Anything that undermines a right is an infringement. Anything that encroaches upon a right is an infringement.

If you want that to be true then you will have to separate from this social contract (renouncing US citizenship) and establish your own (found your own country), declaring such; but even then your 'unlimited' right will be naturally limited by your geographical borders.-snip-

Since people are born with inalienable (natural) rights it is the social contract, not geography, that limits (infringes) upon natural rights.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-
A permit to exercise a right is appropriate when it involves using a public resource. The permit's function is to ensure no one abuses the resource. Carrying a firearm does not consume a public resource so therefore permits to carry a firearm are inappropriate. Such laws need to be removed.-snip-

Incorrect. A permit's function is to allow the government to control who is NOT allowed to exercise their right.

Oh.. and you have outed yourself once again with defending the limit called a permit as being "appropriate". Anytime the government is deciding what, when, where, why, or by whom, using a right is "appropriate" and what is not "appropriate" is setting limits/infringements.

 

[Bikenut]

-snip-

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Life, liberty and property can all be taken or given away, thus inalienable rights don't exist and Locke was wrong.

All rights can be limited and infringed upon simply by taking away life making the issue of rights for that individual moot. But just because a life, and all the inalienable (or natural rights) inherent in having life, can be taken away doesn't mean they do not exist.