Whalen v Handgun Permit Review Board Appeal Brief Filed

[dblas]

wait, isnt that basically the same search we can all do online???

Yep.

 

[danb]

Yep.

lolololololololol

 

[fishertodd]

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

See here, you've drunk the koolaid too. Just because our driver's ed booklets and the law says it, does not make it so. Freedom of movement is an essential and basic human right, the right of individuals to travel unimpeded from place to place, by foot, scooter, wheelchair, horseback motorcycle, automobile, or whatever. It is not a priviledge. Should a government have the authority to regulate or licence the use of a bicycle? If so, then from where does this authority originate? "The people" cannot delegate powers to an "authority" that they themselves do not possess.

 

[Mark75H]

See here, you've drunk the koolaid too. Just because our driver's ed booklets and the law says it, does not make it so. Freedom of movement is an essential and basic human right, the right of individuals to travel unimpeded from place to place, by foot, scooter, wheelchair, horseback motorcycle, automobile, or whatever. It is not a priviledge. Should a government have the authority to regulate or licence the use of a bicycle? If so, then from where does this authority originate? "The people" cannot delegate powers to an "authority" that they themselves do not possess.

Its not the vehicle that is regulated, its the road. The 'privilege' is to drive on the state improved (not owned) pavement, you can drive any vehicle you want on your brother's farm, there is no restriction on that.

 

[fishertodd]

By your logic, walking on a "state-improved" sidewalk is a priviledge too.

 

[Mark75H]

By your logic, walking on a "state-improved" sidewalk is a priviledge too.

Only if YOU add words to my explanation that I did not include or imply.

 

[whistlersmother]

By your logic, walking on a "state-improved" sidewalk is a priviledge too.

Only if YOU add words to my explanation that I did not include or imply.

But fishertodd inferred from your words as to your logic.

If you didn't explicitly mean what fishertodd inferred, then can you explain your logic as to how his inference is incorrect?

 

[teratos]

But fishertodd inferred from your words as to your logic.

If you didn't explicitly mean what fishertodd inferred, then can you explain your logic as to how his inference is incorrect?

I will. The State hasn't yet determined that it wants to regulate the use of public sidewalks. It did determine it wanted to regulate the use of public motorways.

 

[whistlersmother]

I will. The State hasn't yet determined that it wants to regulate the use of public sidewalks. It did determine it wanted to regulate the use of public motorways.

So the state has decided it wants to regulate firearms, including categorical bans such as Highland Park's.

By your logic, anything outside those regulations is a privilege?

Thus, people living in Highland Park no longer have the privilege of owning "assault weapons"?

 

[teratos]

So the state has decided it wants to regulate firearms, including categorical bans such as Highland Park's.

By your logic, anything outside those regulations is a privilege?

Thus, people living in Highland Park no longer have the privilege of owning "assault weapons"?

Pardon me? A little too much ridiculous speculation on my thoughts that really warrants no further response other than I fully support the 2A.

 

[Adolph Oliver Bush]

Jesus. Toddler logic. “I’m not giving one of my candies until Billy dos first!” It’s called compromise. And it’s obviously a novel idea that neither side is trying. Both sides budge. But someone has to make the first suggestion. Since their side’s first suggestion is always “outlaw all guns” I would think taking a different approach might be worth pursuing. But what do I know? I’m looking for ways to resolve the issue, not destroy the opposition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There should be no compromise on constitutionally enumerated rights, especially rights that that pre-date the Constitution itself.

The 2A is just such a right. To wit:

.....the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That doesnt establish the right to keep and bear, it merely references a PREEXISTING right to keep and bear arms.

Not one effing inch.

 

[Adolph Oliver Bush]

Should be UBC, all background checks are exclusively the federal system, all states must report. This would cut out the MSP. Do away with waiting periods. In and out in 15 or so minutes, unless there is a hold. That is the only compromise I could stomach.

When i have time, ill post a list of every murderer who passed a background check.

The capital gazette shooter comes to mind.

UBCs do not equate to public safety

 

[PowPow]

What would this world look like if laws could be passed that actually prevented evil?

 

[dblas]

See here, you've drunk the koolaid too. Just because our driver's ed booklets and the law says it, does not make it so. Freedom of movement is an essential and basic human right, the right of individuals to travel unimpeded from place to place, by foot, scooter, wheelchair, horseback motorcycle, automobile, or whatever. It is not a priviledge.

On this we agree. But, the form of movement is not essential. The most basic form of movement from one place to another is self motivation without any mechanical help of any type (i.e. walking/running). Anything else can be regulated by any entity that deems it to be regulated, be that car, bike, buggy, etc.

Should a government have the authority to regulate or licence the use of a bicycle? If so, then from where does this authority originate? "The people" cannot delegate powers to an "authority" that they themselves do not possess.

Yes, yes they can, because the government is regulating the mode of movement. It is then up to the citizen to decide if they want to use that mode of movement more so than walking/running. If so, then they pay whatever regulation is called for.

As for freedom of movement on your own or a neighbors property, the government cannot regulate that what so ever. So, if you and a bunch of your friends can come up with a way to get where you need to go without driving on public roads, then no DL and no insurance needed.

 

[dblas]

I will. The State hasn't yet determined that it wants to regulate the use of public sidewalks. It did determine it wanted to regulate the use of public motorways.

While the state does not regulate the use of sidewalks, it does regulate what modes of transportation (Freedom of movement) may be used on them. In PG County and other counties, it is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. Likewise it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle, motor cycle, scooter, etc, on sidewalks.

Likewise on roads, the state regulates the mode of transportation (freedom of movement), ever read the signs on on ramps that say no bicylces, walking, etc.??

 

[welder516]

Not sure I want to give up my God given rights to protect myself , the government has shown aggression to law abiding citizens and have given sanctuary to illegals and criminals . Things are backwards in today's society .

 

[BeoBill]

Then start speaking Spanglish and masquerade as an illegal. See? Fixed!

 

[teratos]

While the state does not regulate the use of sidewalks, it does regulate what modes of transportation (Freedom of movement) may be used on them. In PG County and other counties, it is illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. Likewise it is illegal to drive a motor vehicle, motor cycle, scooter, etc, on sidewalks.

Likewise on roads, the state regulates the mode of transportation (freedom of movement), ever read the signs on on ramps that say no bicylces, walking, etc.??

Good point....there ya go.

 

[whistlersmother]

Pardon me? A little too much ridiculous speculation on my thoughts that really warrants no further response other than I fully support the 2A.

I'm not questioning your support of the 2A. I think your history of responses on this board more than clearly exemplify your support.

My response was to evoke some thought as to my argument. My argument is that when one starts to think when government grants privileges, then any logic to justify that granting can be used to justify granting a right.

I would submit that's the kind of thinking that subjects have.

Instead of attempting to draw a line between privileges and rights, I prefer to say I have all rights granted by my creator, but I have allowed some restrictions on those rights.

I have a right to drive my car upside down, backwards, 100mph, randoming changing lanes. However, if everyone exercised that right, we'd have chaos and a "might-is-right" society.

I prefer to live in a civilized, relatively orderly society, so I CHOOSE to allow certain restrictions upon my rights. To show that I prefer to live in civilized, relatively orderly society, I take the driver's ed class, test, maintain a good driving history, registration, insurance, obey road rules, etc.

If I want to own any sort of arm, regardless of its lethality, I have a right to do so. I even have a right to willy nilly shoot that arm. But I choose to allow the restriction on my right to shoot just anywhere because I prefer to live in a civilized, relatively orderly society.

 

[Occam]

But I choose to allow the restriction on my right to shoot just anywhere because I prefer to live in a civilized, relatively orderly society.

Of course you're NOT actually choosing that. Because other people have already deprived you of that choice. What you're choosing to do is to obey those laws. Or not.