Which is more important -- my rights, or your safety?

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

If guns are a right, are they issued to all citizens? How about people who choose not to pursue happiness?

Wendy P.

Guns are not a right. It is the right to keep and bear arms.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have the right to luxury transportation.
Driving is not a right.

Maybe Obama can make an executive order and mandate Car-stamps.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 3]

Quote

...they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are...the pursuit of happiness. (from memory)

Plain English seems to indicate nobody needs to interfere with the reasonable pursuit of happiness by the individual. Moreover, governments are instituted among men to protect these rights. So, the government needs to protect rather than inhibit.

I have to side with the minority of judges that are viewing driving as a right. In the time the US Constitution was formed, I'm sure they would not have considered riding a horse or walking as a 'privilege'. I think driving is analogous.

Do not confuse the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution. They are two separate documents. The first breaks ties with England and the second is the fundamental law document of the land.

While its "fun" to quote from the first, if it's not in the second, it's not legally binding.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Completely feasible. Just depends on how lazy you are and how coddled you feel you need to be.

You do realise that you are arguing that being allowed to drive = being coddled by the government?

You may be a shade more totalitarian than you think you are.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Then why wasn't a horse issued to every citizen if it was their right?
Why did people have to buy a horse, or not, if they couldn't afford it?

For the same reason that the second amendment doesn't mean the government has to give you guns and the first doesn't mean you get a free printing press.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

If guns are a right, are they issued to all citizens? How about people who choose not to pursue happiness?

Wendy P.

Correct. A right need not be exercised. You have a right to remain silent. But the government cannot force you to shut up.

We have a right to free speech. It doesn't mean that we can't just decide to read a book.

We are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. It doesn't mean we can't invite cops in to take a look around our houses for anything they might find objectionable.

Rights are there if we want to use them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Quote

If guns are a right, are they issued to all citizens? How about people who choose not to pursue happiness?

Wendy P.

Guns are not a right. It is the right to keep and bear arms.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have the right to luxury transportation.
Driving is not a right.

Maybe Obama can make an executive order and mandate Car-stamps.

If you recognise that the right to bear arms is not the same as the right to receive free guns from the government, why do you conflate the right to drive with the right to get free cars?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

If guns are a right, are they issued to all citizens? How about people who choose not to pursue happiness?

Wendy P.

Guns are not a right. It is the right to keep and bear arms.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say you have the right to luxury transportation.
Driving is not a right.

Maybe Obama can make an executive order and mandate Car-stamps.

If you recognise that the right to bear arms is not the same as the right to receive free guns from the government, why do you conflate the right to drive with the right to get free cars?

There is no right to drive

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>There is no right to drive

US courts disagree.

"The right of a 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 a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

"The right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>There is no right to drive

US courts disagree.

"The right of a 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 a common right which he has under his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guaranty 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." Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

"The right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158

Regardless of your quotes (which cover different contexts)

Driving is not a right

To own and carry arms is

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,400]

>Driving is not a right
>To own and carry arms is

Again, US courts disagree. You can have a different opinion, but when it comes down to it, courts make the decisions.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>Driving is not a right
>To own and carry arms is

Again, US courts disagree. You can have a different opinion, but when it comes down to it, courts make the decisions.

No
Those quotes do not say driving is a right

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Methinks you are confusing the "right to travel" with the "right to drive."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Methinks you are confusing the "right to travel" with the "right to drive."

So in the decisions Bill quoted:

"The right of a 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 a common right..."

and

"The right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158

The words "automobile" and "right" and "drive" don't mean what everyone thinks they mean?

...

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

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

...they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among these are...the pursuit of happiness. (from memory)

Plain English seems to indicate nobody needs to interfere with the reasonable pursuit of happiness by the individual. Moreover, governments are instituted among men to protect these rights. So, the government needs to protect rather than inhibit.

I have to side with the minority of judges that are viewing driving as a right. In the time the US Constitution was formed, I'm sure they would not have considered riding a horse or walking as a 'privilege'. I think driving is analogous.

Do not confuse the Declaration of Independence with the US Constitution. They are two separate documents. The first breaks ties with England and the second is the fundamental law document of the land.

While its "fun" to quote from the first, if it's not in the second, it's not legally binding.

Then there are treaty obligations that the USA has entered into, that become "law of the land". Not ALL our rights are spelled out in the Constitution (as amended).

...

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

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi Bill,

Quote

You can have a different opinion, but when it comes down to it, courts make the decisions.

I believe that it was de Toqueville that said, "Ultimately, everything in America will be decided in court." Or something to that effect.

http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/de-tocqueville-america.html

JerryBaumchen

[billvon 2,400]

>Those quotes do not say driving is a right

They say it is a Constitutional right.

Now, can you point to the part of the Second Amendment that grants the right to own a gun?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Methinks you are confusing the "right to travel" with the "right to drive."

Quote

"The right of the citizen to drive on a public street with freedom from police interference… is a fundamental constitutional right" -White, 97 Cal.App.3d.141, 158

The words "automobile" and "right" and "drive" don't mean what everyone thinks they mean?

Too bad the opinion of In re White doesn’t state what you quoted. Indeed, the only time “drive” occurs in the opinion is “North Parkway Drive,” which is used to explain a border where the prosititute was enjoined from entering.

Here’s the issue: “White contends that the map condition violates her rights of free speech, free association, privacy, her right to be free of unreasonable seizures, her rights to travel, and that the condition does not comport with the California probation law and that it is an improper banishment.”

Wrote the court,

Quote

“We conclude that the condition does not pass constitutional muster. White's contention that there is a constitutional right to intrastate travel is valid. The Attorney General is correct that the rationale behind Shapiro v. Thompson (1969) 394 U.S. 618, 629-630 [22 L.Ed.2d 600, 612, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 1329], is that interstate travel is a necessary element of a federal union. 3We conclude that the right to intrastate travel (which includes intramunicipal travel) is a basic human right protected by the United States and California Constitutions as a whole”

Quote

As the court stated in King v. New Rochelle Municipal Housing Authority (2d Cir. 1971) 442 F.2d 646, 648: "It would be meaningless to describe the right to travel between states as a fundamental precept of personal liberty and not to acknowledge a correlative constitutional right to travel within a state."

Quote

Many other fundamental rights such as free speech, free assembly, and free association are often tied in with the right to travel. It is simply elementary in a free society. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values (Kent v. Dulles (1958) 357 U.S. 116, 126

John – thank you for pointing me to the authority you suggested. Whomever you got that link from misquoted it.

Your case support supports my point: methinks that there is confusion between “drive” and “travel.”

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp3d/97/141.html

Edited to add link to case.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

• Quote

[rushmc 18]

See lawrockets post

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

There is no right to drive

So it's ok for the government to arbitrarily ban you, anyone or everyone else from driving? That would be a legitimate, acceptible use of government power?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

There is no right to drive

So it's ok for the government to arbitrarily ban you, anyone or everyone else from driving? That would be a legitimate, acceptible use of government power?

The iowa DOT does it all the time without due process
It also issue civil fines. No court needed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So it's ok for the government to arbitrarily ban you, anyone or everyone else from driving? That would be a legitimate, acceptible use of government power?

I hate to break it to you, but that's exactly how it works. You are banned from driving until such time as you demonstrate "minimum qualifications" to drive.

That's where rights are different. You have a right until it is taken. Versus a privilege, which you don't have until it is given.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/22/do_gun_control_laws_control_guns_116757.html

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns?
By Thomas Sowell - January 22, 2013

The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm's clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state's recent gun control law specifies seven.

Virtually all gun control advocates say that 30 bullets in a magazine is far too many for self-defense or hunting -- even if they have never gone hunting and never had to defend themselves with a gun. This uninformed and self-righteous dogmatism is what makes the gun control debate so futile and so polarizing.

Anyone who faces three home invaders, jeopardizing himself or his family, might find 30 bullets barely adequate. After all, not every bullet hits, even at close range, and not every hit incapacitates. You can get killed by a wounded man.

These plain life-and-death realities have been ignored for years by people who go ballistic when they hear about how many shots were fired by the police in some encounter with a criminal. As someone who once taught pistol shooting in the Marine Corps, I am not the least bit surprised by the number of shots fired. I have seen people miss a stationary target at close range, even in the safety and calm of a pistol range.

We cannot expect everybody to know that. But we can expect them to know that they don't know -- and to stop spouting off about life-and-death issues when they don't have the facts.

The central question as to whether gun control laws save lives or cost lives has generated many factual studies over the years. But these studies have been like the proverbial tree that falls in an empty forest, and has been heard by no one -- certainly not by zealots who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts.

Most factual studies show no reduction in gun crimes, including murder, under gun control laws. A significant number of studies show higher rates of murder and other gun crimes under gun control laws.

How can this be? It seems obvious to some gun control zealots that, if no one had guns, there would be fewer armed robberies and fewer people shot to death.

But nothing is easier than to disarm peaceful, law-abiding people. And nothing is harder than to disarm people who are neither -- especially in a country with hundreds of millions of guns already out there, that are not going to rust away for centuries.

When it was legal to buy a shotgun in London in the middle of the 20th century, there were very few armed robberies there. But, after British gun control zealots managed over the years to disarm virtually the entire law-abiding population, armed robberies became literally a hundred times more common. And murder rates rose.

One can cherry-pick the factual studies, or cite some studies that have subsequently been discredited, but the great bulk of the studies show that gun control laws do not in fact control guns. On net balance, they do not save lives but cost lives.

Gun control laws allow some people to vent their emotions, politicians to grandstand and self-righteous people to "make a statement" -- but all at the cost of other people's lives.

Copyright 2013, Creators Syndicate Inc.

[champu 1]

Quote

But we have banned drinking with an elevated blood alcohol level, cause you might kill someone.

Friends don't let friends drink drunk.

But really, I bumped this post because I have another analogy (I'm a Hofstadter fan, deal with it)

In response to drunk driving we have BAC limits. Great. We have field sobriety tests and breathalyzers. Excellent. We have harsh penalties for DUIs. All right. We have TV adverts running regularly. Good thinking. We have random police checkpoints. Kinda annoying, but I guess maybe it helps. We have inflated statistics about "alcohol related traffic accidents" to include accidents where anyone involved was drunk, even passengers in the not-at-fault vehicle. Wait, why would you do that? We've banned whiskey and shot glasses, because shots of whiskey get you really drunk and you still feel like you can drive... ...oh wait no we didn't because that's idiotic.

[skypuppy 1]

Quote

Quote

But we have banned drinking with an elevated blood alcohol level, cause you might kill someone.

Friends don't let friends drink drunk.

But really, I bumped this post because I have another analogy (I'm a Hofstadter fan, deal with it)

In response to drunk driving we have BAC limits. Great. We have field sobriety tests and breathalyzers. Excellent. We have harsh penalties for DUIs. All right. We have TV adverts running regularly. Good thinking. We have random police checkpoints. Kinda annoying, but I guess maybe it helps. We have inflated statistics about "alcohol related traffic accidents" to include accidents where anyone involved was drunk, even passengers in the not-at-fault vehicle. Wait, why would you do that? We've banned whiskey and shot glasses, because shots of whiskey get you really drunk and you still feel like you can drive... ...oh wait no we didn't because that's idiotic.

My understanding is that if you just bought a case of beer to take home and are in an accident, that will be considered an alcohol-related accident, even if you haven't been drinking. Is this wrong?

If some old guy can do it then obviously it can't be very extreme. Otherwise he'd already be dead.
Bruce McConkey 'I thought we were gonna die, and I couldn't think of anyone

[champu 1]

I don't know why that would come up in the accident report, so I doubt that would end up in statistics. The number of people in each vehicle and their condition (to include drunk, regardless of relevancy) makes sense to record though.

(Btw in this particular part of the analogy I'm referring to people including firearms being confiscated by police during some other action as, "guns involved in crimes." Technically accurate, but intentionally misleading.)