Should you have to provide a license to exercise a right?

[mnealtx 0]

Spun off from another thread:

The argument was made that fingerprints and a background check should be required to purchase a weapon. This requirement was stated to be over and above the Federal background check that is already required.

Should a license be required to exercise ANY right? This includes the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment, since once Congress can require a license to exercise ONE right, sooner or later they will get around to requiring a license for all.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Spun off from another thread:

The argument was made that fingerprints and a background check should be required to purchase a weapon. This requirement was stated to be over and above the Federal background check that is already required.

Should a license be required to exercise ANY right? This includes the ENTIRE Bill of Rights, not just the 2nd Amendment, since once Congress can require a license to exercise ONE right, sooner or later they will get around to requiring a license for all.

Hell. They're doing now when you get a fuckin speeding ticket now in some places.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Pardon? I'm not sure where you're coming from with your comment...can you expand on your reasoning?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Pardon? I'm not sure where you're coming from with your comment...can you expand on your reasoning?

They are running NCIC checks now and requiring fingerprints on traffic (tickets) stops now. Why would (should) buying a gun be any different? You ain't gonna have any privacy soon my friend.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Pardon? I'm not sure where you're coming from with your comment...can you expand on your reasoning?

They are running NCIC checks now and requiring fingerprints on traffic (tickets) stops now. Why would (should) buying a gun be any different? You ain't gonna have any privacy soon my friend.

Why should buying a gun be any different? For one, you don't have a *right* to drive. Are you willing to let the government require you to have a license to post on the internet, or speak in public? How about to vote, or to have a jury trial? That's the can of worms that is being opened up with the suggestion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Pardon? I'm not sure where you're coming from with your comment...can you expand on your reasoning?

They are running NCIC checks now and requiring fingerprints on traffic (tickets) stops now. Why would (should) buying a gun be any different? You ain't gonna have any privacy soon my friend.

Because driving a car isn't a right?

[jm951 0]

It has been argued that driving is a privilege, not a right, as spelled out in the BR & Constitution. However, if you read those documents as relating to "pursuit of happiness" with a broad view of what constitutes happiness, then the driving thing is cast in a completely different light.

[billvon 2,405]

>Should a license be required to exercise ANY right? This includes
>the ENTIRE Bill of Rights . . .

Well, let's take a look at the Bill of Rights:

First Amendment. Freedom of religion, press, speech. Right of people to "peaceably assemble to petition the government." In many places you need a permit for large public assemblies and parades. So that's one that needs a license.

Second Amendment. In many places you need a license to carry a certain sort of weapon in a certain way (CCW laws). So that's another that needs one.

Third. Government can't quarter troops. That's not a right _people_ have, so not really applicable.

Fourth. No searches without probable cause. That one's gone (or more accurately does not pertain to everyone any more.) And is also a proscription against the _state_ doing something.

Fifth. No one can be held without indictment by a grand jury. That one's been breached. Proscription against requiring someone to self-incriminate. That's another proscription of the state, not a description of a personal right.

Sixth. Right to speedy trial, services of a lawyer, right to call witnesses etc. Breached.

Seventh. Common law trials. People still have a right to this, and no license is required.

Eighth. Cruel and unusual punishments. Breached.

Ninth. Rights listed here do not deny other rights. General statement, not a personal right.

Tenth. States and people have all the rights not withheld by the federal government. For these rights, sometimes you need a license (right to drive, right to fly your airplane, right to practice medicine) and sometimes you don't (right to ride a bicycle.)

So of the six intact rights in the Bill of Rights, four pertain to personal rights you can exercise. Of those, three require licenses to exercise at least part of the rights so described. So that's 75% that require a license or permit at least in part.

[mnealtx 0]

While I see your point, I disagree. Admittedly, it's a gray area, as is the 10th Amendment.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

Should a license be required to exercise ANY right?

The Supreme Court hasn't decided yet if you, as a private individual, actually have the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

It's being worked on currently though.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

First and Second... certain activities within the rights require some sort of gov't license, true - the *BASE* of the right itself does not, so while I agree with you as a generality, that is not the basis of my poll.

Kallend's argument in the other thread would require licensing for the *basic* right - owning a gun, not just carrying it in public (which I don't agree with licensing for that in principle, anyway).

That, as I said, opens the door to the same government intrusion and requirement for ALL rights.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Should a license be required to exercise ANY right?

The Supreme Court hasn't decided yet if you, as a private individual, actually have the right to bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.

It's being worked on currently though.

RECENT Supreme Courts, you mean - prior SC's took it as implicit.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 3]

Quote

RECENT Supreme Courts, you mean - prior SC's took it as implicit.

No. I believe you have that exactly wrong.

We live, fortunately for most, in a country where the laws are based on the concept of "that which is not expressly forbidden, is allowed". This is a good thing because it means you don't get hauled away for crap there isn't any laws restricting.

Once a law, such as the one currently in Washington D.C. HAS been made, then and ONLY then do the courts get to decide if the concepts surrounding that law are actually Constitutional.

The SCOTUS never said anything about it previously because the exact issue never came before them. Now it has and they are working on it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Pardon? I'm not sure where you're coming from with your comment...can you expand on your reasoning?

They are running NCIC checks now and requiring fingerprints on traffic (tickets) stops now. Why would (should) buying a gun be any different? You ain't gonna have any privacy soon my friend.

Because driving a car isn't a right?

I make my OWN laws. I've been driving 21 yrs. without a D/L. How ya like them apples? I do carry insurance tho.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[ryoder 1,390]

Quote

It has been argued that driving is a privilege, not a right, as spelled out in the BR & Constitution. However, if you read those documents as relating to "pursuit of happiness" with a broad view of what constitutes happiness, then the driving thing is cast in a completely different light.

(Not disagreeing with you, but elaborating)

Something to consider is that in 1913 NJ became the first state to require a drivers license. Prior to that, anyone could drive a car without restriction. So how is it that the powers-that-be can claim driving is a "privilege" when at one time it was obviously a right.

And I have it on good authority that even such high-profile aviators as the Wright brothers, not only flew with no license whatsoever, but never even took flying lessons!

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Pardon? I'm not sure where you're coming from with your comment...can you expand on your reasoning?

They are running NCIC checks now and requiring fingerprints on traffic (tickets) stops now. Why would (should) buying a gun be any different? You ain't gonna have any privacy soon my friend.

Because driving a car isn't a right?

Isn't it? What about the 9th?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[piper17 1]

The Bill of Rights doesn't GRANT the right to any of the rights - free speech, right to keep and bear arms, etc. It recognizes that citizens have those rights....that we were endowed by the creator with these rights!

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

The Bill of Rights doesn't GRANT the right to any of the rights - free speech, right to keep and bear arms, etc. It recognizes that citizens have those rights....that we were endowed by the creator with these rights!

The Bill of Rights says nothing whatsoever about a Creator. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence, which doesn't form part of the Constitution.

Somehow I don't think The Creator envisioned a right to own a gun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Somehow I don't think The Creator envisioned a right to own a gun.

So now you are 'talking to God'?

I've now seen it all. Maybe you need to run for public office.

have a good weekend

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Somehow I don't think The Creator envisioned a right to own a gun.

So now you are 'talking to God'?

Have you been taking lessons in logic from rushmc?

If I think about Nicole Kidman, am I talking to her?

Quote

I've now seen it all. Maybe you need to run for public office.

I guess you could do worse.

Quote

have a good weekend

you too.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

First and Second... certain activities within the rights require some sort of gov't license, true - the *BASE* of the right itself does not, so while I agree with you as a generality, that is not the basis of my poll.

Kallend's argument in the other thread would require licensing for the *basic* right - owning a gun, not just carrying it in public (which I don't agree with licensing for that in principle, anyway).

That, as I said, opens the door to the same government intrusion and requirement for ALL rights.

You stated www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3069304#3069304 that "madmen" and criminals are excluded from the right to bear arms. How would you propose to do that without some way of identifying those who DO have the right?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

First and Second... certain activities within the rights require some sort of gov't license, true - the *BASE* of the right itself does not, so while I agree with you as a generality, that is not the basis of my poll.

Kallend's argument in the other thread would require licensing for the *basic* right - owning a gun, not just carrying it in public (which I don't agree with licensing for that in principle, anyway).

That, as I said, opens the door to the same government intrusion and requirement for ALL rights.

You stated www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3069304#3069304 that "madmen" and criminals are excluded from the right to bear arms. How would you propose to do that without some way of identifying those who DO have the right?

They are already constrained from purchase by Federal law. Perhaps you should peruse ATF Form 4473.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jumprunner 0]

Yea, and all of this done under what administration? The Bush administration, and his cohorts in Congress who back his insane agenda in turning America into a Nazi-like police state.

So, we all have heard by now, I hope, of the Department of Homeland Security.

Doesnt the word "Homeland" have such a familiar connotation to it? Same connotation as "Fatherland", might as well have just called it "Deptartment of Fatherland Security". I was really surprised to see this type of word being put on a govt organization. It no doubt shows you where things are going.

We are talking about our rights? License to excersise a right? What rights? Why would you need a license to excersise something that no longer exists in the first place?

[mnealtx 0]

Back from dailyconspiracy.com, I see... how've you been?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Quote

First and Second... certain activities within the rights require some sort of gov't license, true - the *BASE* of the right itself does not, so while I agree with you as a generality, that is not the basis of my poll.

Kallend's argument in the other thread would require licensing for the *basic* right - owning a gun, not just carrying it in public (which I don't agree with licensing for that in principle, anyway).

That, as I said, opens the door to the same government intrusion and requirement for ALL rights.

You stated www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3069304#3069304 that "madmen" and criminals are excluded from the right to bear arms. How would you propose to do that without some way of identifying those who DO have the right?

They are already constrained from purchase by Federal law. Perhaps you should peruse ATF Form 4473.

Not very effectively, apparently.

How about you tell us an EFFECTIVE way of doing it?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.