Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[BluesStringer]

BlueSHILL doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He heard the words "strict scrutiny" on Court TV or something, and it sounded like a phrase that would help him look smart, so he's running with it.

Strict scrutiny has only been applied to a Second Amendment case in one Circuit Court of Appeals, The Sixth, in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department (et al) in 2014. The Supreme Court didn't make a determination in Heller or McDonald whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applied. They left it to lower courts to figure out, as cowardly oligarchs are wont to do.

Likewise, the cowards of the Sixth Circuit didn't address the plaintiff's grievance of falling under the auspices of an unconstitutional law that prevented him from ever owning or being in possession of a gun due to having been briefly committed for less than a month 73 years ago. Tyler was denied the right to buy a gun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), and denied even the right to appeal the first denial under a program set up specifically to address injustices like the one perpetrated against him as an individual, because - get this - the same Congress that created the program of relief, defunded it in 1992. Sorry Tyler, you're screwed. No more guns for you ever. So his appeal to the 6th C. only addressed the injustice of not being able to appeal the injustice of being prohibited for life in the first place, and the 6th C. applied strict scrutiny to the 2A on Tyler's behalf only insofar as he now has the right to appeal the original injustice of being prohibited for life! And who does he appeal to now? Another unconstitutional creation of Congress, the BATFE, who will never give him relief because they are a government unto themselves and no stinkin' Appeals Court is going to tell them how to run their country!

So BlueSHILL is full of crap. Tyler "won" the right to appeal, so the only way strict scrutiny gets applied across the board is if the government appeals Tyler v. Hillsdale to SCOTUS so they can maintain prohibited persons status for life, and only within the 6th Circuit's jurisdiction, which may very well happen, but the point is, even now, the 2A itself has never had strict scrutiny applied to it, only the right to appeal lifetime prohibited person status has.

A good sussing-out of the Tyler case and its potential future implications can be had here.

So you can drop the facade of pretending to know what you're talking about, BlueSHILL. Read that last link and have all of your delusions washed clean, then start over fresh, or keep embarrassing and exposing yourself as a government boot-licker who doesn't give a damn about The People's rights.

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

And there you go some more..... applying your personal beliefs of what is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable".

Rights are absolute. The only people who do not understand that are people who want to control that right with restrictions, conditions, criteria, and limits.

Everyone, including the mentally unfit, the felon, and children, have the right to keep and bear arms because the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that human beings are born with just because they are born. It has nothing to do with social contracts from England (social contract of Christianity from England? Now that is a new one from left field I've not heard before.) but is a natural right (some say God given right) everyone is born with.

Parents are responsible for teaching children, released felons were forced to be responsible for their crime by serving time but once they served their time that responsibility has been fulfilled, family/society is responsible for putting the mentally unfit into a hospital. There isn't any need to control the gun... but there is a need to control those who use guns irresponsibly. You want to control an inanimate object that people use instead of controlling those who use that object irresponsibly. You do not know what a right is but you certainly do know you want to control others and your entire post shows it.

You said:


I will say that your notion of control might be of a lesser degree than what Chicago wanted but it is still the infringement of forcing a limitation on the storage (keeping) of arms. The only difference being you disagree with Chicago's notion of gun storage (keeping) but wholeheartedly agree with your notion of gun storage (keeping) yet both are limitations on the right to keep (store) arms. But your method of control (limiting keeping) is Ok because, after Scrutiny it isn't as Strict as Chicago... right?

I will agree there needs to be a standard... and that standard should be holding those, the individual persons, who use the right to keep and bear arms responsible for any harm they do while keeping and bearing arms.... not a standard of who, when, where, how, why, and with what, arms should be allowed to be kept and borne.

But what you are saying is that any standard of keeping arms that is more strict than your personal standard limits the right to keep arms and is an infringement but your personal standard doesn't? Why is it so difficult to understand that any standard, any criteria, any rule, any law, that limits the right to keep arms is an infringement? It is not a matter of agreeing with the degree of limiting that sets the standard of infringement... the very fact that there is a standard of any kind that limits the right in any way is an infringement.

A natural right is a right which cannot be taken away or even willingly given up. Everything can be taken away from you. Your 'arms', your freedom, your very life. You can willingly give up anything. Therefore there are no natural rights. The only natural right which might exist is the right to choose your own behavior, your own mindset, but even this can be argued to be a condition of one's state of being and not a 'natural right' since even that can be taken away with trauma or pharmaceuticals. Natural rights just flat-out do not exist.

I say again: Natural rights do not exist.

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, not a natural right, as the right to keep and bear arms originates from and operates within a Social Contract.

No right is unlimited. No right is universal.

And Strict Scrutiny is not my personal standard. It's the national standard.

 

[Bikenut]

A natural right is a right which cannot be taken away or even willingly given up. Everything can be taken away from you. Your 'arms', your freedom, your very life. You can willingly give up anything. Therefore there are no natural rights. The only natural right which might exist is the right to choose your own behavior, your own mindset, but even this can be argued to be a condition of one's state of being and not a 'natural right' since even that can be taken away with trauma or pharmaceuticals. Natural rights just flat-out do not exist.

I say again: Natural rights do not exist.

The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right, not a natural right, as the right to keep and bear arms originates from and operates within a Social Contract.

No right is unlimited. No right is universal.

And Strict Scrutiny is not my personal standard. It's the national standard.

The only thing you said in your post that is correct is that everything can be taken from you. Got that? TAKEN from you. And it is obvious you are on the side of those who would take.

That does not mean the right to keep arms isn't a natural right... it only means folks like you are willing to use any convoluted logic to justify wanting to limit that right... and by limiting it you are taking a portion of that right away. Which is how we got from when a citizen could own a cannon to now where some folks want to limit keeping an arm to only on the person or locked up but most definitely not in a tissue box.

The 2nd Amendment is not some Christian contract left over from England nor is it a civil right nor is it a result of some social contract... All of the bill of rights, including the right to keep arms, is nothing more than wording that recognizes the natural rights of human beings and binds the government from instituting any limits/restrictions/criteria.

All of your convoluted psuedo logic is nothing more than an attempt to justify restricting and limiting the right to keep arms to the criteria you personally consider "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable".

And before you come back with something about me saying that as if it is a bad thing... it most certainly IS a bad thing. The idea that a right, a natural or God given right, can be limited as long as those limits are seen by someone as "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable", then there are not rights.... just whatever privileges the ones in power deign to allow.

 

[Bikenut]

BlueSHILL doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He heard the words "strict scrutiny" on Court TV or something, and it sounded like a phrase that would help him look smart, so he's running with it.-snip-
Blues

And now he is trying to see if a new buzz phrase.... Social Contract.... will fly.

 

[Dave Nowlin]

I haven't been on here in a while and didn't realize that the children with no real life experience had taken over the site. Responsible storage of a firearm when it isn't on your person is YOUR responsibility. That has been demonstrated over and over again in our courts after an accidental shooting of a child.

 

[Bikenut]

I haven't been on here in a while and didn't realize that the children with no real life experience had taken over the site. Responsible storage of a firearm when it isn't on your person is YOUR responsibility. That has been demonstrated over and over again in our courts after an accidental shooting of a child.

Yes, along with the right to keep arms comes the responsibility... not the law, rule, limitation, of being required to keep (store) according to what someone else decrees is "reasonable", "appropriate", and "acceptable" to them.... but the personal responsibility according to the factors involved.

As for no real life experience? How does requiring folks with no children keep (store) their guns in ways where children can't get at them...you know... like either locked up or on your person but not hidden in a tissue box or in plain sight leaning in the corner or just left laying on the kitchen table protect children that aren't even there, never were there, won't ever be there?

Thing is.... I can be very responsible according to the factors in my life but that might not suit someone else due to the factors in their life. But no one, not even those in authority, should be the one to require I adhere to any standard they deem "responsible", "appropriate", or "acceptable".

Edited to add:
My point being that what one person considers irresponsible because of their own life situation may not be irresponsible for someone else and limiting/restricting/undermining the right to keep arms just because that fits one life situation still infringes upon the right to keep arms for others.

 

[BluesStringer]

I haven't been on here in a while and didn't realize that the children with no real life experience had taken over the site. Responsible storage of a firearm when it isn't on your person is YOUR responsibility. That has been demonstrated over and over again in our courts after an accidental shooting of a child.

Your post is fraught with fallacies. More liberty to live one's own life according to his/her wants, needs and desires has been lost to the silly meme of "But it's all about the widdow chirren" than almost any other premise one can come up with.

There are states with storage laws that include trigger locks or securing a weapon so that a child can't get to it, which in almost every case, also slows down access by the adult upon whom the requirement is placed, but that's not my point - the point is, accidents still happen involving the widdow chirren in those jurisdictions, proving once again that gun control in any and all of its manifestations doesn't do squat to protect anybody. Only education and encouragement towards consistently great safety practices accomplishes anything. Saying those of us whom you perceive to be lacking "real life experience" are necessarily "children" because we don't have kids and wouldn't want the government telling us how to protect them even if we did is decidedly not the kind of encouraging education that all us wet-behind-the-ears little crumb-crunchers should have to endure from such a learned "Old Geezer" such as yourself.

From one old geezer to another, go pound sand. And mind your own damned business by not siccing government on every single gun owner just because we have no need or desire to store our weapons as you would have government further force us to do. Leave my rights and storage practices alone, thankyouverymuch. When an actual child gets a hold of one of my weapons and either gets hurt or hurts somebody else, you can rightfully say "I told you so," but since that will never happen because no children ever visit my home, pipe down geezer.

Blues

 

[Ringo]

Your post is fraught with fallacies. More liberty to live one's own life according to his/her wants, needs and desires has been lost to the silly meme of "But it's all about the widdow chirren" than almost any other premise one can come up with.

There are states with storage laws that include trigger locks or securing a weapon so that a child can't get to it, which in almost every case, also slows down access by the adult upon whom the requirement is placed, but that's not my point - the point is, accidents still happen involving the widdow chirren in those jurisdictions, proving once again that gun control in any and all of its manifestations doesn't do squat to protect anybody. Only education and encouragement towards consistently great safety practices accomplishes anything. Saying those of us whom you perceive to be lacking "real life experience" are necessarily "children" because we don't have kids and wouldn't want the government telling us how to protect them even if we did is decidedly not the kind of encouraging education that all us wet-behind-the-ears little crumb-crunchers should have to endure from such a learned "Old Geezer" such as yourself.

From one old geezer to another, go pound sand. And mind your own damned business by not siccing government on every single gun owner just because we have no need or desire to store our weapons as you would have government further force us to do. Leave my rights and storage practices alone, thankyouverymuch. When an actual child gets a hold of one of my weapons and either gets hurt or hurts somebody else, you can rightfully say "I told you so," but since that will never happen because no children ever visit my home, pipe down geezer.

Blues

Link Removed​

 

[Blueshell]

The only thing you said in your post that is correct is that everything can be taken from you. Got that? TAKEN from you.

And if it can be TAKEN away, it's not a 'natural right.

That does not mean the right to keep arms isn't a natural right...

No that's exactly what it means.

...it only means folks like you are willing to use any convoluted logic to justify wanting to limit that right...

The right was already limited centuries before I was born.

The 2nd Amendment is not some Christian contract left over from England nor is it a civil right nor is it a result of some social contract...

The aforementioned proof to the contrary means your opinion here is incorrect.

All of the bill of rights, including the right to keep arms, is nothing more than wording that recognizes the natural rights of human beings and binds the government from instituting any limits/restrictions/criteria.

The bill of rights recognizees pre-existing civil rights rights which exist within the social contract of Christianity. Natural rights don't exist to then be recognized.

And before you come back with something about me saying that as if it is a bad thing... it most certainly IS a bad thing. The idea that a right, a natural or God given right, can be limited as long as those limits are seen by someone as "reasonable", "appropriate", or "acceptable", then there are not rights.... just whatever privileges the ones in power deign to allow.

'Good' and 'bad' are subjective moral values and thus irrelevant. There are no natural rights. That's just a fact. The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. That's just a fact. No right is unlimited. That's just a fact. There is no 'good' or 'bad' about it, that's just how it is.

 

[Blueshell]

And now he is trying to see if a new buzz phrase.... Social Contract.... will fly.

Wow you truly are stupid. Social Contract Theory Law & Legal Definition

Our Constitution is a Social Contract. The second amendment itself is part of a Social Contract.

If you were to rent out a room of your home, and a tenant had to agree to house rules which are outside of the rental agreement, those house rules are a social contract.

 

[Blueshell]

Your post is fraught with fallacies. More liberty to live one's own life according to his/her wants, needs and desires has been lost to the silly meme of "But it's all about the widdow chirren" than almost any other premise one can come up with.

There are states with storage laws that include trigger locks or securing a weapon so that a child can't get to it, which in almost every case, also slows down access by the adult upon whom the requirement is placed, but that's not my point - the point is, accidents still happen involving the widdow chirren in those jurisdictions, proving once again that gun control in any and all of its manifestations doesn't do squat to protect anybody. Only education and encouragement towards consistently great safety practices accomplishes anything. Saying those of us whom you perceive to be lacking "real life experience" are necessarily "children" because we don't have kids and wouldn't want the government telling us how to protect them even if we did is decidedly not the kind of encouraging education that all us wet-behind-the-ears little crumb-crunchers should have to endure from such a learned "Old Geezer" such as yourself.

From one old geezer to another, go pound sand. And mind your own damned business by not siccing government on every single gun owner just because we have no need or desire to store our weapons as you would have government further force us to do. Leave my rights and storage practices alone, thankyouverymuch. When an actual child gets a hold of one of my weapons and either gets hurt or hurts somebody else, you can rightfully say "I told you so," but since that will never happen because no children ever visit my home, pipe down geezer.

Blues

Did he make this thread, to then need to mind his own business?

Does this website exist just so everyone can not talk?

 

[AmericanHero!]

BlueSHILL doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He heard the words "strict scrutiny" on Court TV or something, and it sounded like a phrase that would help him look smart, so he's running with it.

Strict scrutiny has only been applied to a Second Amendment case in one Circuit Court of Appeals, The Sixth, in Tyler v. Hillsdale County Sheriff's Department (et al) in 2014. The Supreme Court didn't make a determination in Heller or McDonald whether strict or intermediate scrutiny applied. They left it to lower courts to figure out, as cowardly oligarchs are wont to do.

Likewise, the cowards of the Sixth Circuit didn't address the plaintiff's grievance of falling under the auspices of an unconstitutional law that prevented him from ever owning or being in possession of a gun due to having been briefly committed for less than a month 73 years ago. Tyler was denied the right to buy a gun under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), and denied even the right to appeal the first denial under a program set up specifically to address injustices like the one perpetrated against him as an individual, because - get this - the same Congress that created the program of relief, defunded it in 1992. Sorry Tyler, you're screwed. No more guns for you ever. So his appeal to the 6th C. only addressed the injustice of not being able to appeal the injustice of being prohibited for life in the first place, and the 6th C. applied strict scrutiny to the 2A on Tyler's behalf only insofar as he now has the right to appeal the original injustice of being prohibited for life! And who does he appeal to now? Another unconstitutional creation of Congress, the BATFE, who will never give him relief because they are a government unto themselves and no stinkin' Appeals Court is going to tell them how to run their country!

So BlueSHILL is full of crap. Tyler "won" the right to appeal, so the only way strict scrutiny gets applied across the board is if the government appeals Tyler v. Hillsdale to SCOTUS so they can maintain prohibited persons status for life, and only within the 6th Circuit's jurisdiction, which may very well happen, but the point is, even now, the 2A itself has never had strict scrutiny applied to it, only the right to appeal lifetime prohibited person status has.

A good sussing-out of the Tyler case and its potential future implications can be had here.

So you can drop the facade of pretending to know what you're talking about, BlueSHILL. Read that last link and have all of your delusions washed clean, then start over fresh, or keep embarrassing and exposing yourself as a government boot-licker who doesn't give a damn about The People's rights.

Blues

Do you just hang out on this forum to insult and criticize other peoples opinions? Because that's pretty much all that you do. The forum exists so there can be open discussion if i'm not mistaken and you should let people express thier opinion without slamming everyone who doesn't agree with you. If you want new people to actually contribute new perspectives into these threads you are probably going to have to stop attacking people as soon as they do.

Posters like you have me thinking about just finding a more open forum sight. Get a grip on something other than your firearm for once.

 

[Blueshell]

Do you just hang out on this forum to insult and criticize other peoples opinions? Because that's pretty much all that you do. The forum exists so there can be open discussion if i'm not mistaken and you should let people express thier opinion without slamming everyone who doesn't agree with you. If you want new people to actually contribute new perspectives into these threads you are probably going to have to stop attacking people as soon as they do.

Posters like you have me thinking about just finding a more open forum sight. Get a grip on something other than your firearm for once.

I belong to DefensiveCarry.com, they have a lot of positive participants and zero tolerance for rudeness or off-topic posts.

OpenCarry.org is a good site for activism, but any post mildly critical of any real world activist event will be met with an infraction.

 

[AmericanHero!]

I belong to DefensiveCarry.com, they have a lot of positive participants and zero tolerance for rudeness or off-topic posts.

Thanks Blueshell, I will certainly give that a look.

Be well.

 

[BluesStringer]

Did he make this thread, to then need to mind his own business?

Does this website exist just so everyone can not talk?

Umm....the guy I responded to in what you just quoted from me, didn't make this thread at all. The guy who made this thread just gave me a giant Thumbs Up for the same post you're slamming me for.

This site exists to talk about pretty much anything having to do with guns, but inevitably focuses heavily on legal and rights issues from the pro-rights side of the equation. There are no storage laws in my state. I can have my weapons any damned where I want them on or inside my property/home. It is a right that I both exercise and enjoy daily, and I don't need or want anyone encouraging the federal government to take away from either me or my state's government the right to decide for ourselves such micro-managing issues.

Do you just hang out on this forum to insult and criticize other peoples opinions? Because that's pretty much all that you do. The forum exists so there can be open discussion if i'm not mistaken and you should let people express thier opinion without slamming everyone who doesn't agree with you. If you want new people to actually contribute new perspectives into these threads you are probably going to have to stop attacking people as soon as they do.

This is rather interesting. One guy who's been here since June, 2015 and now you who has been here since January 27 of this new year are both telling me what this forum "exists" for. I did nothing but answer another in a long line of posts referencing "strict scrutiny" that doesn't apply to the 2A at all as of this writing. Over and over again, even after I said rather mildly that he wasn't even using the phrase in context to what it means in appeals court decisions, he kept repeating it. I proved with links and documentation that he didn't know what he was talking about because shills for big-government are a blight on the gun-owning public, and unfortunately for those of us who pay attention to the gun-owning public, we are surrounded by such shills.

I'll tell you what "new" perspectives I *want* people to consistently contribute here -- shall not be infringed -- and I want them to mean it just exactly the same way Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Adams (both John and Samuel), Hancock, Franklin, Henry and every man who fought and died under those leaders in order to codify those words into law for perpetuity meant it. When I hear less than that level of commitment to founding principles, I push back. Live with it or don't, ain't no skin off my teeth.

Posters like you have me thinking about just finding a more open forum sight. Get a grip on something other than your firearm for once.

So today's AmericanHeroes just slink away when things get the least bit real nowadays? Must be the geezer in me, but times they are a' changin'. I pray for your sake that you are ready for changes yet to come, because it's gonna get a whole lot uglier on this planet than anything you'll ever see from me on this forum. I don't want you to leave, I'm not asking or encouraging you to leave, but if you're bound and determined to find some wonderful Utopia on another internet gun forum.....

Blues

 

[Blueshell]

Umm....the guy I responded to in what you just quoted from me, didn't make this thread at all.

That's my point. He didn't make this thread, he didn't start this conversation, to then need to be told to mind his own business.

This site exists to talk about pretty much anything having to do with guns, but inevitably focuses heavily on legal and rights issues from the pro-rights side of the equation. There are no storage laws in my state. I can have my weapons any damned where I want them on or inside my property/home. It is a right that I both exercise and enjoy daily, and I don't need or want anyone encouraging the federal government to take away from either me or my state's government the right to decide for ourselves such micro-managing issues.

And that's a fine position to take.

This is rather interesting. One guy who's been here since June, 2015 and now you who has been here since January 27 of this new year are both telling me what this forum "exists" for.

It only takes 5 seconds to see what this site was for through Tapatalk, and I knew before joining, and I've been debating this topic for 15 years, so my join date on this little forum is irrelevant.

I did nothing but answer another in a long line of posts referencing "strict scrutiny" that doesn't apply to the 2A at all as of this writing.

False. Strict Scrutiny applies to all rights spicificaly enumerated in the Constitution; freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of speach, keep and bear arms, equal protection, voting, etc.

Over and over again, even after I said rather mildly that he wasn't even using the phrase in context to what it means in appeals court decisions, he kept repeating it. I proved with links and documentation that he didn't know what he was talking about because shills for big-government are a blight on the gun-owning public, and unfortunately for those of us who pay attention to the gun-owning public, we are surrounded by such shills.

You keep repeating yourself, that much is true. Unfortunately repetition doesn't make you factually correct. Strict Scrutiny applies to the 2A, if the tissue box in OP can even be said to fall under the 2A at all.

I'll tell you what "new" perspectives I *want* people to consistently contribute here -- shall not be infringed -- and I want them to mean it just exactly the same way Madison, Jefferson, Washington, Adams (both John and Samuel), Hancock, Franklin, Henry and every man who fought and died under those leaders in order to codify those words into law for perpetuity meant it. When I hear less than that level of commitment to founding principles, I push back. Live with it or don't, ain't no skin off my teeth.

Those very founders imposed limits, proving that a limit isn't necessarily an infringement.

So today's AmericanHeroes just slink away when things get the least bit real nowadays? Must be the geezer in me, but times they are a' changin'. I pray for your sake that you are ready for changes yet to come, because it's gonna get a whole lot uglier on this planet than anything you'll ever see from me on this forum.

Oh you mean like in Connecticut when gun owners lubed up and spread cheeks when the state passed an 'assult weapons' ban?

No cop is going to risk his child's dental plan over your guns.

 

[Firefighterchen]

You do realize 85%+ didn't register or turn in their "assault weapons" in Connecticut right?

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Blueshell]

You do realize 85%+ didn't register or turn in their "assault weapons" in Connecticut right?

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app

You do realize that 85% has yet to open fire on a tyrannical government, right? If any of those 85% use their unregistered gun in otherwise lawful self defense or hunting, they'll be arrested. Or...the cop will try...I suppose that's the moment you want the 85% to start war? No?

So much for cold dead hands, more like cold tucked tails.

The government knows you're just talk, that's why they doing this crap.

 

[Hatchetman]

Do you just hang out on this forum to insult and criticize other peoples opinions? Because that's pretty much all that you do. The forum exists so there can be open discussion if i'm not mistaken and you should let people express thier opinion without slamming everyone who doesn't agree with you. If you want new people to actually contribute new perspectives into these threads you are probably going to have to stop attacking people as soon as they do.

Posters like you have me thinking about just finding a more open forum sight. Get a grip on something other than your firearm for once.

When an "opinion" is in fact a hope/desire/promotion of infringing on someone elses RIGHTS then, YES, people will CALL YOU OUT ON IT AND DISPLAY THE IDIOCY AND OUTRIGHT UNCONSTITUTIONAL CRAP YOU ARE SO PROUD OF.... If you dont like people calling you out on that crap, dont spout it off....

 

[Firefighterchen]

You do realize that 85% has yet to open fire on a tyrannical government, right? If any of those 85% use their unregistered gun in otherwise lawful self defense or hunting, they'll be arrested. Or...the cop will try...I suppose that's the moment you want the 85% to start war? No?

So much for cold dead hands, more like cold tucked tails.

The government knows you're just talk, that's why they doing this crap.

Freedom is not contingent on killing someone. It's contingent on self sovereignty. The fact they didn't obey the law means they're free, and they didn't bend over.

Just like your tissue box, you can create unconstitutional law, using "strict scrutiny," "social contact," or any other man made law, it means nothing.

Tyranny is based in fear, and forced through death. I get it, you're a "yes sir" kind of guy, maybe it's impossible for you to understand.

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app