Are we REALLY for protection of the Second Amendment, or just a little piece of it?

[eye95]

Are we REALLY for protection of the Second Amendment, or just a little piece of

Again, the RIGHT is to travel, not to operate the machinery. The OPERATION of the machinery is the privilege, which the government can, does, and should regulate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Freedom1Man]

Again, the RIGHT is to travel, not to operate the machinery. The OPERATION of the machinery is the privilege, which the government can, does, and should regulate.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

You're referring to commercial transport with your words.

I have the RIGHT to use my automobile on the public road ways. When was the last time you tried to take an ox or horse drawn wagon onto a major public road way? It is illegal to even walk along some public roadways. If they are not public then the public should not have to pay for them.

You didn't even read any of the documentation I linked to to backup my position. http://www.freeenterprisesociety.com/right_to_travel.htm

Your argument leads to the whole, well you have a right to defend yourself but you need government permission to use any weapon to do so.

So calling you a statist is correct. Seeing as how destruction of the right to travel is not found in any of the constitutions I have read.

 

[1245A Defender]

Huh?

snipped

"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.

"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.

For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073

snipped

help me,,, it seems that johnson, is in opposition to both dulls and smith.
am I hard of reading?

 

[eye95]

Again, all that ruling says is that there is a right to travel. It does not address the privilege to operate the machinery at all.

Folks just keep missing that point.

 

[Freedom1Man]

snipped

help me,,, it seems that johnson, is in opposition to both dulls and smith.
am I hard of reading?

Johnson is a ruling separating commercial from non-commercial transport. So there was no conflict.

It's like you have the right to keep an bear arms is an implied right to self defense but not an implied right to be an armed guard for hire.

 

[Freedom1Man]

Again, all that ruling says is that there is a right to travel. It does not address the privilege to operate the machinery at all.

Folks just keep missing that point.

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horsedrawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct." [emphasis added] II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135.

So, it's my right to use a wagon or horse drawn carriage on the freeway? Free from molestation by the state and such agents? So I would have even leverage with the 4th amendment by those first two means?

The reason it was not spelled out in the BOR is because not even the King thought it was legal to restrict that right at that time.

 

[marshaul]

Only if they are allowed by your militia.

[video=youtube;woySeSNBL3o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woySeSNBL3o[/video]

It used to be the very 1st line in the 2nd amendment until District of Columbia vs. Heller decided that the authors didn't really mean for the amendment to have anything to do with militias.

Why are you here? Or do you really just find English that difficult? Have you missed my posts explaining how the Virginia Constitution disproves your view of the intent, even for those who are grammatically challenged?

 

[georg jetson]

You're referring to commercial transport with your words.

I have the RIGHT to use my automobile on the public road ways. When was the last time you tried to take an ox or horse drawn wagon onto a major public road way? It is illegal to even walk along some public roadways. If they are not public then the public should not have to pay for them.

You didn't even read any of the documentation I linked to to backup my position. http://www.freeenterprisesociety.com/right_to_travel.htm

Your argument leads to the whole, well you have a right to defend yourself but you need government permission to use any weapon to do so.

So calling you a statist is correct. Seeing as how destruction of the right to travel is not found in any of the constitutions I have read.

Freedom1Man, you've made some great points on this subject lately. Unfortunately, it's off topic. Not that it's your fault though. For some reason when discussing the right to arms, motor vehicle regulation always seems to come up as an example of why or how the government should regulate arms. It is a sad commentary on the education level of the average American about just what "constitutional republic" means.

We have a right to travel. That is as basic a right as self defense. To tell me what type of property I may travel with is to tell me how I may defend myself. Both are unacceptable infringements.

The right to travel is almost completely abriged. Perhaps if we are successful in removing all of the infringements from the enumerated rights, we can start working on doing the same for those not enumerated.

 

[marshaul]

It's amusing watching eye95 (yet again) repeat SCOTUS decisions as if they are gospel truth.

No defense of the position "to travel is the right, whereas to operate machinery is the privilege".

As I have done on numerous occasions, I can prove the SCOTUS to be engaging in self-contradictory logic, at the very least necessitating this issue being resolved by reason and logic rather than bare assertions.

First of all, read the Heller decision:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

So, you can't ban handguns, because of the second amendment and the fact that handguns are the most popular means of exercising the second amendment today. OK, I can buy this.

What about the first amendment? Let's see what it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Well, the people need to travel to the place of assembly in order to assemble. So the first amendment necessarily implies a right to travel. (The SCOTUS agrees.)

What is the most popular means of travel? Is it a horse and buggy? Is it a train, or a plane? Is it walking, or biking? No. It is the motor vehicle.

Therefore, I make the following argument, using the SCOTUS's words and logic:

...the inherent right of travel has been central to the First Amendment right. The licensure of motor vehicles amounts to a licensure of an entire class of “travel” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, licensing the mere operation of “the most preferred means of travel in the nation to ‘assemble’ and use for conveyance around the nation,” would fail constitutional muster.

There is a right to travel. That right must be, by analogy to the Heller decision's excellent reasoning, extended to the most popular means of conveyance: driving. Something which is licensed is not a right. Therefore, driver's licensure exists contrary to the right to travel.

You'll note that eye95 has placed me on his ignore list, precisely so that he can pretend his positions aren't constantly destroyed as I have just done, and there will be no rebuttal.

I win. Have a nice day.