Constitutional Carry

[ThePigStye]

I'd like to hear some opinions on how this works (actually doesn't work).

Let's use Rowe vs. Wade for an example. That's a Supreme Court ruling that allows every woman in the US to murder her unborn human baby,with impunity (exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action). This is the "law of the land", am I correct?

Doesn't every human that lives in AmeriKa, including cops and goverment, have to uphold and obey ALL these "laws of the land?. Does not this Federal Law trump all local/city, county, and state laws?

Because this is (supposedly) a woman's right, therefore, no woman would need a license (because it's her right and not a privilege) to do the deed and she'll never get into any trouble with "the law" for doing this. Am I correct here? I believe I am.

Now onto the next example. In AmeriKa, there is what is know as The Bill of Rights. These rights are what all human beings supposedly have, that can never be taken away, as they are rights and not privileges granted by The State.

The 2nd item in this Bill of Rights says that all human beings have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right shall not be infringed.

Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary defines "infringe" as
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

Notice in the first example,
A prince (or goverment in our case) infringes an agreement by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
Now back to the "Law of the Land" and "Rule of Law". Since the US Gov says that Supreme Court rulings are "the Law of the Land" and must be strictly adhered to, Supreme Court ruling

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...................

The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to possess a firearm for self defense. That becomes "Law of the Land", just as Rowe vs. Wade is, right ? Can ya only defend the life of yourself and your family (and your property), inside your home? WRONG.
The 2nd Amendment does not specify how you can bear this arm (concealed or openly), therefore, both are acceptable

A human being has a right to life, liberty and property (5th Amendment) not in his home only, but every single place he travels.

Now look at the next Supreme Court ruling, which is the Law of the Land

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”

So, going by the United States of AmeriKa, Inc. own laws, someone tell me, without contradicting yourself or contradicting the laws of the US, why I need to get a "license" to bear arms for self defense? Remember, 2nd Amendment gives me that RIGHT, UNINFRINGED; Shuttlesworth vs, Birmingham guarentes it as being a never overturned "Law of the Land". Forcing one to PAY to exercise their rights are an infridgement to their rights and 2nd Amendment says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Comments please..............................................................................

 

[BRD@66]

Ah you'll do well here.

 

[motorcarman]

Unfortunately Precedent is also recognized and many RIGHTS have been INFRINGED.
Incrementalism.

bob

 

[ThePigStye]

Unfortunately Precedent is also recognized and many RIGHTS have been INFRINGED.
Incrementalism.

bob

 

[ThePigStye]

Presedent: an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances

What earlier event would void these rulings? Are not the laws for EVERYONE? Costumed clowns with pretty gold stars are NOT immune from these laws.
They can have machine guns and we mundanes are disallowed? These clowns can kill unarmed people because what? These clowns can steal your money, jewelry,cars, homes, land with impunity, why?

 

[busykngt]

Yay verily I say unto you, welcome to the modern world of the adult; for it is a most {legally} complex world in which we live.

 

[pronstar]

Using Roe V. Wade as an example, there are 100-times more places to get an abortion in CA than there are in TX.

And by extension, I can't see CC happening in progressive population centers.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[ThePigStye]

I've been open carrying for 3 or 4 years now without any permits. I live about 50 miles east of Dallas.
I remember on September 1, 2007 when on the local Dallas News (and I believe it was in the Dallas Morning Newspaper too), the journalist asked the Dallas DA, about the the new law vs. a concealed carry permit. DA says the people have the right to carry a loaded handgun in their automobile when traveling (if you are in your automobile and it's running and moving, you are traveling). You can also carry a loaded handgun from your private property to your automobile, also carrying a loaded handgun from your automobile back onto your private property (or anyone else's private property as long as they are fine with it). You can't leave a firearm unattended in your automobile, so you have to carry it with you, (back then, it would have to have be concealed since Texas then didn't have open carry, but since Texas passed open carry, you would be able to carry it openly now). Then DA proceeded to say, the new law basically undermines the need for a concealed carry permit, as far as the "law" reads.............

I see 99 cops have quit the Dallas piggy force in the last 10 weeks YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY !!!!!!!!!!

 

[jrbfishn]

Why yay?

Sent from my RCT6873W42 using Tapatalk

 

[Jon Payne]

Why yay?

Sent from my RCT6873W42 using Tapatalk

It's a common cry of euphoria from trolls.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Charlie]

Ahh .......... where is this discussion going that it hasn't been before?

Where/how does 99 cops quitting somewhere tie in with the rest of the thread?

 

[jrbfishn]

Yeah, can't see that either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G870A using Tapatalk

 

[ThePigStye]

A troll, I am not. I'm simply seeking answers to otherwise complicated questions.

The only good government is self-government.

Question to you, Jon Payne.

Why would any one, in their right mind, pay someone to do what is their responsibility in the first place? That makes those people irresponsible Jon. Are ya irresponsible Jon?

Only to have those same benefactors that they are paying to rule over them, screw them senseless, by taxing and fee-ing them to death, taking 20% to 60% or more of the peoples income, caging humans because they violated one of their statutes or commercial codes (yet no crime is commited), ruining lives and families; while these power hungry benefactors offer benefits to other irresponsible people that are too lazy to work and would rather mooch
off the government and certainly do not deserve that free, stolen money. These benefactors steal this money
either by conning people or by intimidation thru threat of violence or by out right force).

Force never equals freedom.

Look Jon, for the last 6000 years, corrupt, power hungry people have decided to make these "governments". And for the last 6000 years, EVERY single one of these governments have been CORRUPT to the core, from the piggies in the small towns all the way up to the king or president himself.
Jon, why would anyone in their right mind think that , some how, all of a sudden, they can "vote" in a government that will save them all? It just won't ever happen with humans, ever Jon. Get over it. Power hungry people have a severe mental problem.

Now, instead of answering like a liberal, answer the questions at hand like someone with some common sense.

Thanks

 

[ThePigStye]

Ahh .......... where is this discussion going that it hasn't been before?

Where/how does 99 cops quitting somewhere tie in with the rest of the thread?

It ties in as that's 99 more people that will not be taking our freedoms away from us.

 

[Charlie]

Had some bad experiences with law enforcement, have ya'?

 

[ThePigStye]

Actually, no. Not yet any way.I stay way away from any cop. I don't call them law enforcement, because they rarely do that. They are nothing more than code enforcers. Piggies basically harass and intimidate, so they can fulfill their quotas, and generate more income for the State, so they can keep their lush jobs, riding around in their cruisers, breaking their own laws with impunity and getting obese while eatin' donuts and drinking coffee or doin' steroids so they can over power helpless old grandmas and mentally challenged folks.

I have seen WAY too many people get screwed by corrupt cops. No such thing as a good cop. The only good cop is an ex-cop. Those that have seen the error of their ways and watched as other corrupt piggies have abused their supposed authority, while they watched on and could do nothing to change the abuse, since doing so would only get them fired and black listed. They finally had enough and quit "the force".

But why isn't anyone answering my original post questions? I would rather spend my afternoon getting answers, instead of chattin'.

 

[Charlie]

My guess is you're not getting much participation because your attitudes are somewhat different than those of most members here. You bias is showing and you hate law enforcement and therefore that makes them all bad and corrupt. We have members here that are law enforcement; active, retired, etc. You won't make any friends, etc. by going to any forum and start that way.

 

[Jon Payne]

A troll, I am not. I'm simply seeking answers to otherwise complicated questions.

The only good government is self-government.

Question to you, Jon Payne.

Why would any one, in their right mind, pay someone to do what is their responsibility in the first place? That makes those people irresponsible Jon. Are ya irresponsible Jon?

Only to have those same benefactors that they are paying to rule over them, screw them senseless, by taxing and fee-ing them to death, taking 20% to 60% or more of the peoples income, caging humans because they violated one of their statutes or commercial codes (yet no crime is commited), ruining lives and families; while these power hungry benefactors offer benefits to other irresponsible people that are too lazy to work and would rather mooch
off the government and certainly do not deserve that free, stolen money. These benefactors steal this money
either by conning people or by intimidation thru threat of violence or by out right force).

Force never equals freedom.

Look Jon, for the last 6000 years, corrupt, power hungry people have decided to make these "governments". And for the last 6000 years, EVERY single one of these governments have been CORRUPT to the core, from the piggies in the small towns all the way up to the king or president himself.
Jon, why would anyone in their right mind think that , some how, all of a sudden, they can "vote" in a government that will save them all? It just won't ever happen with humans, ever Jon. Get over it. Power hungry people have a severe mental problem.

Now, instead of answering like a liberal, answer the questions at hand like someone with some common sense.

Thanks

Hey troll, I'm one of the pigs you spoke of. Troll on little man. Yawn.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[diesel1959]

I'd like to hear some opinions on how this works (actually doesn't work).

Let's use Rowe vs. Wade for an example. That's a Supreme Court ruling that allows every woman in the US to murder her unborn human baby,with impunity (exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action). This is the "law of the land", am I correct?

Doesn't every human that lives in AmeriKa, including cops and goverment, have to uphold and obey ALL these "laws of the land?. Does not this Federal Law trump all local/city, county, and state laws?

Because this is (supposedly) a woman's right, therefore, no woman would need a license (because it's her right and not a privilege) to do the deed and she'll never get into any trouble with "the law" for doing this. Am I correct here? I believe I am.

Now onto the next example. In AmeriKa, there is what is know as The Bill of Rights. These rights are what all human beings supposedly have, that can never be taken away, as they are rights and not privileges granted by The State.

The 2nd item in this Bill of Rights says that all human beings have the right to keep and bear arms, and that this right shall not be infringed.

Noah Webster 1828 Dictionary defines "infringe" as
1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.

2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law.

3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.]

Notice in the first example,
A prince (or goverment in our case) infringes an agreement by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done.
Now back to the "Law of the Land" and "Rule of Law". Since the US Gov says that Supreme Court rulings are "the Law of the Land" and must be strictly adhered to, Supreme Court ruling

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense ...................

The Supreme Court rules that the 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT to possess a firearm for self defense. That becomes "Law of the Land", just as Rowe vs. Wade is, right ? Can ya only defend the life of yourself and your family (and your property), inside your home? WRONG.
The 2nd Amendment does not specify how you can bear this arm (concealed or openly), therefore, both are acceptable

A human being has a right to life, liberty and property (5th Amendment) not in his home only, but every single place he travels.

Now look at the next Supreme Court ruling, which is the Law of the Land

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, Alabama 394 U.S. 147 (1969)
“If the State converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.”

So, going by the United States of AmeriKa, Inc. own laws, someone tell me, without contradicting yourself or contradicting the laws of the US, why I need to get a "license" to bear arms for self defense? Remember, 2nd Amendment gives me that RIGHT, UNINFRINGED; Shuttlesworth vs, Birmingham guarentes it as being a never overturned "Law of the Land". Forcing one to PAY to exercise their rights are an infridgement to their rights and 2nd Amendment says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Comments please..............................................................................

Uhhh, dude--have you actually ever read Roe v. Wade? And by that, I don't mean what someone else has written about the case, but the case itself? Not the summary of the case, either, but the actual opinions written by the judges in their own words? Until you have, you might need to take a chill pill with dispensing supposed legal knowledge quite so freely.

And no, I am not an abortion supporter . . . but I am one of those piggies you're trolling oh so hard.

 

[ThePigStye]

My guess is you're not getting much participation because your attitudes are somewhat different than those of most members here. You bias is showing and you hate law enforcement and therefore that makes them all bad and corrupt. We have members here that are law enforcement; active, retired, etc. You won't make any friends, etc. by going to any forum and start that way.

I don't hate any person, cop or not, but when cops break the laws that they are sworn to uphold, they are corrupt, and I hate corruption.

How many times have you leo's went over the speed limit with no lights and siren on? I have seen many in Dallas do it. That's breaking one of your laws, yet you get by with it. Cops should NEVER have impunity.

So I don't care for corrupt cops. That's my business. But since there are so many cops,retired and current, lurking on this forum, and they supposedly KNOW the law, why didn't any of them simply answer the questions right off the bat, instead of posting some liberal comment? Is it because they are ignorant of the law themselves and don't want to look like a moron?

As you can see from the replies, most of the posters are some of those power hungry people I speak of.

Ya know, once police were there to stop crime. CRIME: Harm to ones person or ones property or stealing ones property. If there is no crime, cops have no right to interfere in someone else's business. Check this out. A real PEACE officer would know his job is simply to protect and serve the taxpayers that pay their paychecks. Now everything has changed to law enforcement officer for the State Corporation.

The more I read about cops, the more I see that they are getting even more corrupt by the hour.
Stop the whinin' with liberal comments and just answer my question I posted. How hard is that? Or are the steroids starting to get to some of y'all?


Diesel, what part or RvW am I supposed to be concerned with, in the original full written case? Should I read every single letter, just so I can get the jest of it? I'm anti-abortion, as you can tell. Murder is murder, period.