Regulating Freedom Away

[jakee 1,255]

Anyone else want to explain to Quade why, despite the second amendment, there are still licenses for guns? I'm sure he used to know it, I'm also sure he's talked about it himself once or twice, but he seems to be suffering from severe acute amnesia right now.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

>Which goes back to my original point. I guess the only things that are rights are in
>the bill of rights?

No.

>Other than that the government can fuck you over anyway they want?

Those very laws that you think "fuck you over" are there to keep other people from fucking you over.

Laws against drunk driving? That evil nanny-state law takes away your right to drive yourself home even if you are responsible and know your limits! But it protects the lives of other people on the road. It protects their lives at the expense of your rights.

EPA waterway rules? Those business-killing rules take away your right to build a nice stock pond on your property! But it also saves the livelihood of the guy down the river who needs that water for his farm. It protects his rights at the expense of yours.

That's how most laws work. Are they all perfect? Definitely not. And if you don't think a given law or rule makes sense, you are free to try to change it through your vote and through your elected representative. That's how representative government works.

[quade 3]

We are, of course, talking about public roads, specifically in California on a motorcycle. Anyone else who thought otherwise is, to use words which have already been used by a different poster in this thread, a moron.

Not you -- the other guy I'm discussing this with.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jgoose71 0]

jakee

************If you split traffic you have to do it a certain way (effective ban in CA).

You do realize that driving is a privilege and not a right; yes?

Actually that speaks to the part of his OP that was philosophically correct.

Driving is a right. Anyone that says otherwise is a moron.

Well, I guess I can't even begin to argue with that sort of legal knowledge.

No, you can't. Because it's true, and it's blindingly obvious that it's true.

If the 9th doesn't cover freedom of movement then it doesn't cover anything. Find a better way of travelling than cars and then you can ban driving. Until then, fugeddaboutit.

freedom of movement may be a right, but a car is not. You can walk....

You must ask permission to pay the man before you are allowed to drive. Kind of my point about regulations. Sorry....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

freedom of movement may be a right, but a car is not. You can walk....

Don't be daft. That argument hasn't worked since they invented horses.

Quote

You must ask permission to pay the man before you are allowed to drive.

Now you're falling into the same trap as Quade, which is kind of ironic. Rights don't stop being rights because there are reasonable and un-burdensome regulations on it for the protection of the rest of society. It also doesn't stop being a right if something involved in the excercising of it that has monetary value is taxed.

Being alive is a right, and by extension you've pretty much got to extend that to the right to drink water. But you need to pay to be connected to the pipes, and even if there's water right under your feet there are regulations about the kind of well you can dig to get to it.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

I can't find it with a quick search, but (short version) operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right. Same thing with operating a plane.

This has been upheld a bunch of times.

The "right to travel" is valid. But if your driving privileges have been taken away, you need someone else to drive the car.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[quade 3]

Just one of a bajillion articles on the subject.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html

I guess some people just didn't pay attention in driver's ed.

Another a little more definitive;
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1054787.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[dorkitup 1]

Quote

Last year Obama passed 81,611 pages of new rules saying what we can and can’t do.

False.

I think you should do a little research into the Federal Register and its purpose. You also may want to do a little research into how federal agencies actually work.

Let me ask you a question: Of all these "new rules" that were published, which ones did you participate in? If you didn't participate, why not? The reason rules are published in the Federal Register is to notify the public and to solicit public comment. These Agencies want your input and ask for it before any rule becomes law. Are you getting involved? If not, why not? Anyone can. There are a large number of people that do get involved. One person can make a difference. I've seen it. Stop whining and get involved.

In my opinion, the main point of the article you linked is in the last sentence:

Quote

“If Congress isn’t willing to force Obama to explain why unelected should make laws, it must be because the Republican Congress isn’t willing to end over-delegation."

Obviously (if you have any clue) there's nothing for Obama (or any other previous POTUS) to explain. Congress delegated authority to all of these agencies to make laws. Additionally, in my opinion, the congress absolutely does not want to end so-called (according to the interviewee) "over-delegation." Especially republicans (edit: in fairness, democrats do the same thing with a R president, just target different agencies, though I do think its less in that scenario). Then they wouldn't have a boogey-man to blame (EPA is a favorite) when business or their constituents get mad about some rule from some agency. The article should be seen for exactly what it is: politicking.

On a side note - I'm continuously amazed at the number of people I talk to in the US who are citizens and have no clue on how their govt works. (Honestly, immigrants who have become citizens are better informed.) If you don't know how this particular part of govt works (executive agencies), call up one of these agencies and ask them to explain the process. Really. Do it. In my experience, they are more than happy to explain and are happy that people are showing an interest and want to get involved. The vast majority are genuinely interested in making the US what the people want.

Or don't. Whatever. I guess its also fun to just whine...

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

I can't find it with a quick search, but (short version) operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right.

If you can't find it then you're just saying it.

Quote

But if your driving privileges have been taken away, you need someone else to drive the car.

Your legal ability to own a gun can also be taken away. Is bearing arms a privilege or a right?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,255]

quade

Just one of a bajillion articles on the subject.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/11/law_talk_who_says_driving_is_a.html

I guess some people just didn't pay attention in driver's ed.

Oh come on.

"Gerald Lykins, a criminal defense attorney who once served as an assistant prosecutor in Kent County, says “rights” are regulated by the U.S. or Michigan Constitutions and must be explicitly listed – such as freedom of religion or the right against self-incrimination."

That guy didn't pay attention when he read the bill of rights

Quote

Another a little more definitive;
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/...circuit/1054787.html

Well that one was easy wasn't it? Dude was a nutjob. And they also ruled against his religious freedom.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[BIGUN 1,053]

Quote

Your legal ability to own a gun can also be taken away. Is bearing arms a privilege or a right?

Depends - on if you're asking me as a "People" or as a "Citizen."

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

jakee

Quote

I can't find it with a quick search, but (short version) operating a motor vehicle is a privilege not a right.

If you can't find it then you're just saying it.

Quote

But if your driving privileges have been taken away, you need someone else to drive the car.

Your legal ability to own a gun can also be taken away. Is bearing arms a privilege or a right?

From Quade's second link (thanks Quade, that's what I was looking for):

Quote

The plaintiff's argument that the right to operate a motor vehicle is fundamental because of its relation to the fundamental right of interstate travel is utterly frivolous.   The plaintiff is not being prevented from traveling interstate by public transportation, by common carrier, or in a motor vehicle driven by someone with a license to drive it.   What is at issue here is not his right to travel interstate, but his right to operate a motor vehicle on the public highways, and we have no hesitation in holding that this is not a fundamental right.

And many individual rights can be removed by due process. That can include guns, liberty (prison), even life itself.

A driver's license can be suspended or revoked by bureaucratic process, including but not limited to failure to pay child support, refusing to take a sobriety test, even littering.

Link:https://billhaddoxinsuranceblog.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/28-ways-to-lose-your-drivers-license/

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jgoose71 0]

dorkitup

Quote

Last year Obama passed 81,611 pages of new rules saying what we can and can’t do.

False.

I think you should do a little research into the Federal Register and its purpose. You also may want to do a little research into how federal agencies actually work.

Let me ask you a question: Of all these "new rules" that were published, which ones did you participate in? If you didn't participate, why not? The reason rules are published in the Federal Register is to notify the public and to solicit public comment. These Agencies want your input and ask for it before any rule becomes law. Are you getting involved? If not, why not? Anyone can. There are a large number of people that do get involved. One person can make a difference. I've seen it. Stop whining and get involved.

In my opinion, the main point of the article you linked is in the last sentence:
*** “If Congress isn’t willing to force Obama to explain why unelected should make laws, it must be because the Republican Congress isn’t willing to end over-delegation."

Obviously (if you have any clue) there's nothing for Obama (or any other previous POTUS) to explain. Congress delegated authority to all of these agencies to make laws. Additionally, in my opinion, the congress absolutely does not want to end so-called (according to the interviewee) "over-delegation." Especially republicans (edit: in fairness, democrats do the same thing with a R president, just target different agencies, though I do think its less in that scenario). Then they wouldn't have a boogey-man to blame (EPA is a favorite) when business or their constituents get mad about some rule from some agency. The article should be seen for exactly what it is: politicking.

On a side note - I'm continuously amazed at the number of people I talk to in the US who are citizens and have no clue on how their govt works. (Honestly, immigrants who have become citizens are better informed.) If you don't know how this particular part of govt works (executive agencies), call up one of these agencies and ask them to explain the process. Really. Do it. In my experience, they are more than happy to explain and are happy that people are showing an interest and want to get involved. The vast majority are genuinely interested in making the US what the people want.

Or don't. Whatever. I guess its also fun to just whine...

Two examples for you. A while ago the BATFE tried to ban REM .223 ammo claiming it was an armor piercing pistol round. This ammo is primarily used in plinking and varmint rifles. Because of NFA rules AR pistols are now a huge thing and REM .223 can go through Level III body armor, however it was designed primarily as a rifle round. BATFE wanted to ban it because of it's pistol use (even though the rules specifically say they can't, because of it's primary use) They did put it up on there web site and it was made perfectly clear law suites would follow. Ban was rejected. Good for them.

EPA is a different story. They may put notices up on there web site, but any new clean water issue/ land grab will only be counter acted with law suits. They typically don't give a rats ass what anybody thinks.

But it's for the children and they have lots of money for lawyers.....

Different agencies championing different causes will have varying results. Some don't care what you think because they are the smartest people in the room and they will be sure to tell you just how smart they are.

There is how things are supposed to work (as you described above) and then there is how shit actually happens.....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[billvon 2,400]

They typically don't give a rats ass what anybody thinks.
==============
EPA Public Comment Process

The public has the opportunity to comment on the EPA's proposed addition of six sites (Current NPL Updates: New Proposed NPL Sites & New NPL Sites) to the National Priorities List (NPL). The EPA publishes notices in the Federal Register, listing which sites are being proposed to the NPL. The documents that form the basis for the agency's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this rule are contained in public Dockets located at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices and by electronic access at Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov).

The EPA considers all comments received during a 60-day comment period following the publication date in the Federal Register. During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters Docket and are available to the public on an "as received" basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS (Introduction to the HRS) scoring, should point out the specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects individual factor values or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.
===============

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

And many individual rights can be removed by due process.

So those are only privileges, right?

Quote

A driver's license can be suspended or revoked by bureaucratic process, including but not limited to failure to pay child support, refusing to take a sobriety test, even littering.

That's hilarious, but also ridiculous.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jgoose71 0]

billvon

They typically don't give a rats ass what anybody thinks.
==============
EPA Public Comment Process

The public has the opportunity to comment on the EPA's proposed addition of six sites (Current NPL Updates: New Proposed NPL Sites & New NPL Sites) to the National Priorities List (NPL). The EPA publishes notices in the Federal Register, listing which sites are being proposed to the NPL. The documents that form the basis for the agency's evaluation and scoring of the sites in this rule are contained in public Dockets located at the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC, in the Regional offices and by electronic access at Regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov).

The EPA considers all comments received during a 60-day comment period following the publication date in the Federal Register. During the comment period, comments are placed in the Headquarters Docket and are available to the public on an "as received" basis. A complete set of comments will be available for viewing in the regional dockets approximately one week after the formal comment period closes.

Comments that include complex or voluminous reports, or materials prepared for purposes other than HRS (Introduction to the HRS) scoring, should point out the specific information that the EPA should consider and how it affects individual factor values or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address voluminous comments that are not referenced to the HRS or other listing criteria. The EPA will not address comments unless they indicate which component of the HRS documentation record or what particular point in the EPA's stated eligibility criteria is at issue. Significant comments are typically addressed in a support document that the EPA will publish concurrently with the Federal Register document if, and when, the site is listed on the NPL.
===============

Yes, and I've seen my old bosses empty the "Suggestion Box" into the garbage can too.

I've never seen the EPA back down on anything except under a judges order.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

jakee

Quote

And many individual rights can be removed by due process.

So those are only privileges, right?

Quote

A driver's license can be suspended or revoked by bureaucratic process, including but not limited to failure to pay child support, refusing to take a sobriety test, even littering.

That's hilarious, but also ridiculous.

No they are rights. You have them until they are taken away, with due process involved.
Privileges OTOH, are something you don't have until they are granted.

And there's no requirement for due process to revoke a privilege.

I don't know how it is over in the UK, but here in the US there are a ton of things that will get a DL pulled. No "due process", just a "You've been revoked" letter.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

No they are rights. You have them until they are taken away, with due process involved.

Oh sure, if you add in 'due process' you can take away rights for any petty unrelated reason and it doesn't stop being a right. Makes perfect sense.

Quote

I don't know how it is over in the UK, but here in the US there are a ton of things that will get a DL pulled. No "due process", just a "You've been revoked" letter.

No surprise there. The US is just about the most trigger happy nation in the world when it comes to revoking freedom. Doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

jakee

Quote

No they are rights. You have them until they are taken away, with due process involved.

Oh sure, if you add in 'due process' you can take away rights for any petty unrelated reason and it doesn't stop being a right. Makes perfect sense.

Quote

I don't know how it is over in the UK, but here in the US there are a ton of things that will get a DL pulled. No "due process", just a "You've been revoked" letter.

No surprise there. The US is just about the most trigger happy nation in the world when it comes to revoking freedom. Doesn't mean it isn't ridiculous.

Even if the reason is petty and unrelated (won't disagree with that), due process means that the person has an opportunity to defend themselves, see the evidence against them and face their accusers (or at least it's supposed to). When a privilege gets pulled, it just happens.

And I fully agree that some of the stuff is totally ridiculous.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Even if the reason is petty and unrelated (won't disagree with that), due process means that the person has an opportunity to defend themselves, see the evidence against them and face their accusers (or at least it's supposed to).

And that makes sense to you? It's a sufficient reason?

What if you were once convicted of assault and then soldiers could come and live in your house.

What if getting convicted of a felony DUI could strip you of your right to due process in the future?

You think the process of revoking someone's rights matters but the reasons don't?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

jakee

Quote

Even if the reason is petty and unrelated (won't disagree with that), due process means that the person has an opportunity to defend themselves, see the evidence against them and face their accusers (or at least it's supposed to).

And that makes sense to you? It's a sufficient reason?

What if you were once convicted of assault and then soldiers could come and live in your house.

What if getting convicted of a felony DUI could strip you of your right to due process in the future?

You think the process of revoking someone's rights matters but the reasons don't?

Well, what of that is actually happening? (Got a link, or are you just saying it? ) And I didn't say I liked it or agreed with it, just that I agree that it happens.

I agree that your examples would be wrong. Due process is important, but the reasons also matter.

In theory, due process would allow appeal for unreasonable removal of rights (either extreme removal or extremely ridiculous and petty reasons).

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

Hi jakee,

Quote

then soldiers could come and live in your house.

This happened in England during WW II.

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Well, what of that is actually happening? (Got a link, or are you just saying it? Tongue) And I didn't say I liked it or agreed with it, just that I agree that it happens.

You didn't say you agreed with it, but you did say that rights are still rights if they can be removed via due process even if the reason for removing them is petty or unrelated to the excercise of the right.

So, theoretically, does that mean the right to due process could be stripped from someone via due process? It's self evidently absurd, but why?

Might be easier to consider that it's not the best way to determine what makes a right.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[turtlespeed 212]

jakee

Quote

Well, what of that is actually happening? (Got a link, or are you just saying it? Tongue) And I didn't say I liked it or agreed with it, just that I agree that it happens.

You didn't say you agreed with it, but you did say that rights are still rights if they can be removed via due process even if the reason for removing them is petty or unrelated to the excercise of the right.

So, theoretically, does that mean the right to due process could be stripped from someone via due process? It's self evidently absurd, but why?

Might be easier to consider that it's not the best way to determine what makes a right.

Certain individual rights can be taken away under due process.

But you know that, you just wanted to type something to see your words on your screen.

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

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

Certain individual rights can be taken away under due process.

Why certain rights? Are rights rights or are some rights less righty than other rights? And if they are less righty then at some point they surely start to get somewhat privilegy.

Quote

But you know that,

Give yourself a gold star. When you catch up with the rest of the conversation you'll find out that wasn't under debate.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?