|
Real0ne -> RE: Why was the 2nd Amendment written and added to the Constitution. (1/6/2013 8:04:51 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
I do foresee a problem. It's not exactly like gun owners are going to see themselves as common street punks. It's not like there won't be tens of millions of their brethren in the same boat. It's in effect creating tens of millions of a new criminal class with the stroke of a pen.
Goverment does that all the time.
Insurance requirements to drive wasnt always needed. A DL's wasnt always needed. Do it now without either and you are a criminal. There are many such laws.
Is it ok that we have to have Driver's Licenses and Insurance?
No not as a one shoe fits all policy!
If you use the common-way itself to make your living (over the road trucking for instance), then you bet you are a driver who is driving and you damn well better have a DL and all required permits.
On the other hand because once again there is so much ignorance in this country and so damn much money for the government to extort from that ignorance they simply treat everyone as a driver and replaced RIGHT TO TRAVEL which requires no license, is not lawfully taxable, with DRIVING which is a lawful tax.
You government is presumed to not be able to convert a right into a privilege that cop on the street and everyone in the judiciary, county, municipality all get a cut of that ticket that that cop writes out along with every attached agency.
Enforcement of the patriot act generated I believe over a trillion bucks by violating your rights they keep the courts and legislatures and the cops in business. RICO look up professor fine and the california case.
Governments are charteerd to protect YOUR rights as an singlular man or woman as well as the democratic/corporate individual.
Why post the right to travel in the gun thread?
Because they are both a secured right by the constitution and the articles of confederation (since no legislation was passed to abrogate the right it still exists to this very day.)
The day of the gun is coming. They trapped you! You cannot travel on peoples private property and you cannot use your choice of locomotion on the common way, hence the only way you can travel (non-business associated transportation) is by buying a business "drivers" license. Entrapment.
Have the right to travel and you cannot use it is not a right or privilege. Having the right to own and bear uninfringed but required to pay a tax is infringement.
You can use the travel cases to show how a secured right should be treated at least in so far as the courts are concerned though POLICY and the police state violate them and run contrary to court decisions.
Guns were and are infringed upon the very same way but there is little legislation by comparison.
Right to Travel
DESPITE ACTIONS OF POLICE AND LOCAL COURTS,
HIGHER COURTS HAVE RULED THAT AMERICAN CITIZENS
HAVE A RIGHT TO TRAVEL WITHOUT STATE PERMITS
By Jack McLamb (from Aid & Abet Newsletter)
For years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted on the belief that traveling by motor vehicle was a privilege that was given to a citizen only after approval by their state government in the form of a permit or license to drive. In other words, the individual must be granted the privilege before his use of the state highways was considered legal. Legislators, police officers, and court officials are becoming aware that there are court decisions that disprove the belief that driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval in the form of a license. Presented here are some of these cases:
CASE #1: "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
It could not be stated more directly or conclusively that citizens of the states have a common law right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S Constitution.
CASE #3: "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
CASE #4: "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
As hard as it is for those of us in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. American citizens do indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of others. Government -- in requiring the people to obtain drivers licenses, and accepting vehicle inspections and DUI/DWI roadblocks without question -- is restricting, and therefore violating, the people's common law right to travel.
Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. This means that the beliefs and opinions our state legislators, the courts, and those in law enforcement have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that case law is overwhelming in determining that to restrict the movement of the individual in the free exercise of his right to travel is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution and most state constitutions. That means it is unlawful. The revelation that the American citizen has always had the inalienable right to travel raises profound questions for those who are involved in making and enforcing state laws. The first of such questions may very well be this: If the states have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions -- such as licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections to name just a few -- on a citizen's constitutionally protected rights. Is that so?
For the answer, let us look, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination of this very issue. In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,
"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."
Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point -- that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people? Other cases are even more straight forward:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision; however, the Constitution itself answers our question - Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason? The answer is found in Article Six of the U.S. Constitution:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."
In the same Article, it says just who within our government that is bound by this Supreme Law:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."
Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm
of course you do not get to decide what is constitutional. The constitution can say everyone has the right to eat chocolate and the regs will license (tax) you and fine you if you violate the reg that violates your right and of course our corrupt courts uphold the police regulation and use the constitution for toilet paper.
same with guns.
Infringe means infringe! Any involvement by government is an infringement unless they want to help you carry your barret
the best protection for nations against other nations and the dangers of nukes is MAD (mutual assured destruction). Why would it be any different for people?
|
|
|
|
