CHL and Vehicle?

[WildBill]

You have the right to travel. You do not have the right to travel using just any method you wish.

I strongly disagree. And the best analogy to this is that I have the right to self-defense but that does not mean i have the right to any means I desire so gun ownership and carrying can be regulated.

IMO, people have been brainwashed into thinking that traveling is a privilege. When the constitution was written people traveled by horse and buggy. Did they need a DL and did the buggy need a safety sticker and registration to travel? Horse and buggy insurance? I don't think so.

[57Coastie]

...Somebody show me where the Constitution authorizes the TSA's powers.

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 18 and maybe even a little help from Clause 3.

Jim

[C-dub]

You have the right to travel. You do not have the right to travel using just any method you wish.

I strongly disagree. And the best analogy to this is that I have the right to self-defense but that does not mean i have the right to any means I desire so gun ownership and carrying can be regulated.

What? Maybe it's the antibiotics I'm on, but that sounds the same to me.

We do have the right to travel just about anywhere in this country and to defend ourselves. However, driving a car is not a right and while owning a gun is, the type of gun is regulated, so I don't get it.

[srothstein]

C-Dub, that is the crux of the argument. Is the regulation of the type of gun you carry constitutional or is it an interference with your 2A rights? If the gun regulation is unconstitutional, and I believe it is, then so is the regulation of how you travel. While driving was not the original subject of the discussion on travel rights, I do believe that requiring a DL is unconstitutional and that your driving, even on public streets, is a right inherent in your right to travel.

Part of my belief system on this is that the government authority to regulate my rights is much more limited than most people think. Another part is to try to be internally consistent. By internally consistent, I mean things like agreeing that you, or people I don't like, have the exact same rights I do. And if I have a right in one area and take it to mean that it is complete, then I must recognize that all rights are complete and apply the logic to all.

A third analogy might be that I have the right to a free press, but the government could limit the size or capabilities of it. Clearly, if I have a right, I have the right with all of its implications.

[C-dub]

Okay, yup, it's the antibiotics. Making my head all fuzzy.

[Longshot38]

C-Dub, that is the crux of the argument. Is the regulation of the type of gun you carry constitutional or is it an interference with your 2A rights?

US Constitution, Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So with the verbage of this Amendment things are clear. Regulation is not only allowed but implied. However it is more specific about regulation the militia (with by US law is any citizen between the ages of 18 and 45, IIRC).

Also a little history lesson here. Our second amendment right is modeled after the Swiss. And while the US does not require military service, this is another topic entirely that I could write a very long paper upon, the point was clear. Our founders expected every US household to possess the standard issue infantry weapon of the day and citizens to be proficient in its use for the express purpose of defending ones person, family, and country from any threat. It is that simple.

[sjfcontrol]

There is an obsolete definition of the word "regulate"...

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
        --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Therefore, the term "well regulated" as used in the second amendment would more properly be phrased as "well trained" in today's usage. The framers were not advocating the control of arms, but were considering that a populace that owned and used arms would already know how to use them should they be required to use them in defense of the state.

At least that's how I interpret it.

[G.A. Heath]

C-Dub, that is the crux of the argument. Is the regulation of the type of gun you carry constitutional or is it an interference with your 2A rights?

US Constitution, Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So with the verbage of this Amendment things are clear. Regulation is not only allowed but implied. However it is more specific about regulation the militia (with by US law is any citizen between the ages of 18 and 45, IIRC).

Also a little history lesson here. Our second amendment right is modeled after the Swiss. And while the US does not require military service, this is another topic entirely that I could write a very long paper upon, the point was clear. Our founders expected every US household to possess the standard issue infantry weapon of the day and citizens to be proficient in its use for the express purpose of defending ones person, family, and country from any threat. It is that simple.

If we choose to use the modern definition of regulate(d) within the second amendment then with the standing legal definition of unorganized militia we essentially read the militia clause in the second amendment so that all able bodied men from 17 to 45 who are not currently in the armed services are to be well regulated (Hey!!!! We just found a new avenue for more big government!). However "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." must be interpreted so that no infringement is possible on the right to keep and bear arms.

[sjfcontrol]

I'm not sure of your point, but... Why would you use the "modern" definition of a word used in a document that is over 230 years old?

[G.A. Heath]

My point is the absurdity of using the modern definition.

[sjfcontrol]

My point is the absurdity of using the modern definition.

Ah! The bulb of understanding illuminates!

[Longshot38]

C-Dub, that is the crux of the argument. Is the regulation of the type of gun you carry constitutional or is it an interference with your 2A rights?

US Constitution, Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So with the verbage of this Amendment things are clear. Regulation is not only allowed but implied. However it is more specific about regulation the militia (with by US law is any citizen between the ages of 18 and 45, IIRC).

Also a little history lesson here. Our second amendment right is modeled after the Swiss. And while the US does not require military service, this is another topic entirely that I could write a very long paper upon, the point was clear. Our founders expected every US household to possess the standard issue infantry weapon of the day and citizens to be proficient in its use for the express purpose of defending ones person, family, and country from any threat. It is that simple.

If we choose to use the modern definition of regulate(d) within the second amendment then with the standing legal definition of unorganized militia we essentially read the militia clause in the second amendment so that all able bodied men from 17 to 45 who are not currently in the armed services are to be well regulated (Hey!!!! We just found a new avenue for more big government!). However "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." must be interpreted so that no infringement is possible on the right to keep and bear arms.

No really. This goes back to my lesson is history. The people and the militia are one in the same. The authors of the Constitution did not create a document/framework for big government, rather it is framework for a very specific type of government with specific authorities and right. In this document the individual rights of the people was well as the collective rights of the federal government are clearly defined (and states rights are addressed but not as well defined, by design of course). As I state before, US law defines all able bodies men of certain age to be militia, and the founders used this definition thus in the context of the Constitution the people are the militia. Also the concept of this Amendment came from the Swiss, thus the goal was similar. Have a well trained militia that was proficient with the standard issue infantry weapon of the time for the purpose of defense. Now for the part about regulated. The government is supposed to regulate the militia as a matter of proficiency (aka training). This again came from the Swiss were their citizens, even after their mandatory service, retain their issued weapon and are required and provided ammunition for practice.

[RPB]

C-Dub, that is the crux of the argument. Is the regulation of the type of gun you carry constitutional or is it an interference with your 2A rights?

US Constitution, Amendment II:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So with the verbage of this Amendment things are clear. Regulation is not only allowed but implied. However it is more specific about regulation the militia (with by US law is any citizen between the ages of 18 and 45, IIRC).

Also a little history lesson here. Our second amendment right is modeled after the Swiss. And while the US does not require military service, this is another topic entirely that I could write a very long paper upon, the point was clear. Our founders expected every US household to possess the standard issue infantry weapon of the day and citizens to be proficient in its use for the express purpose of defending ones person, family, and country from any threat. It is that simple.

If we choose to use the modern definition of regulate(d) within the second amendment then with the standing legal definition of unorganized militia we essentially read the militia clause in the second amendment so that all able bodied men from 17 to 45 who are not currently in the armed services are to be well regulated (Hey!!!! We just found a new avenue for more big government!). However "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." must be interpreted so that no infringement is possible on the right to keep and bear arms.

No really. This goes back to my lesson is history. The people and the militia are one in the same. The authors of the Constitution did not create a document/framework for big government, rather it is framework for a very specific type of government with specific authorities and right. In this document the individual rights of the people was well as the collective rights of the federal government are clearly defined (and states rights are addressed but not as well defined, by design of course). As I state before, US law defines all able bodies men of certain age to be militia, and the founders used this definition thus in the context of the Constitution the people are the militia. Also the concept of this Amendment came from the Swiss, thus the goal was similar. Have a well trained militia that was proficient with the standard issue infantry weapon of the time for the purpose of defense. Now for the part about regulated. The government is supposed to regulate the militia as a matter of proficiency (aka training). This again came from the Swiss were their citizens, even after their mandatory service, retain their issued weapon and are required and provided ammunition for practice.

Disagree, The initial premise flaw of current history teachers based on conjecture, rather than first/secondhand oral history (like ignoring the Hebrew's Talmud-Oral History accompanying the law) passed down from those who were there. The current crop of Harvard History teachers disagree with the Harvard Grads who actually wrote the documents. Apparently they are trying to create more documents stating their recent version. I'm guessing they hope that the majority of docs stating their version becomes predominant and preferred.

As most all families/descendants of the authors of that Constitution document that I know understand the oral history/reasons that the laws were actually written... (As mine does through the Adams lineage)

The only way the People and the Militia could be one and the same, is if the Third Amendment is regarding people quartering themselves.

Truth: There are two groups addressed in each of the Second and the Third Amendments, (and almost all amendments, if you read them) written about 45 minutes from each other, and with the same mental processes and thoughts in mind. The first group in each is the potential aggressor, the Second group in each is the Defender/Populace we sought to protect.

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

They (the Second and Third) together are about US (people/population) protecting ourselves from the army/militia/ as we had to do against our British Owners in their fancy uniforms... out of foresight for when WE form our own standing army ... which would be "necessary" for the common defense

A standing army, being a necessary evil ... the right of the general population shall not be infringed, in case they turn nasty against us ... as history has shown ...

The well regulated militia = the soldiers/army against which the people/property owners may defend. Otherwise, we may end up in the sticky wicket we just got out of (OUR OWN ARMY FORCING US TO DO THINGS) from the English troops (when we were owned by England). THAT is why we wrote those, to avoid that situation reoccurring which we just escaped.

In fact, each and every one of the first eight amendments explicitly states or implies two separate parties, an aggressor, and one to protect.

Amendment 1

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.

Amendment 4

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, [BY/from ..... the Govt]...

http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/BillOfRights.html#1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

THAT was the mental process and writing style that day... two parties in each Amendment ... to offer one protection from the other. The militia and the people are not one and the same ... Although current education persons want you to believe it ...
Current Liberal Educators want a "Bash-O-Matic" at every school, so they *change history* http://michaelgraham.com/archives/r-i-l ... s-cap-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dominic joined dozens of children yesterday at the annual Toy Gun Bash in the gymnasium of Pleasant View Elementary School. There, they lined up to toss their toy guns, from dainty purple water guns to camouflage-painted pistols, inside the Bash-O-Matic,

=====================================

Now, to UN-hijack ... I think the OP's question was answered on a previous page?

[Longshot38]

G.A. Health a few thing you are mistaken about:

1) When our founders speak of soldiers they are referring to regular army regulars. But when they are speaking of militia they are speaking of the people. This is not something that I learned from formal education, rather it is something that I figured out myself after doing a little digging, and US law supports it. As for the third amendment supporting your argument it doesn't, again solider refers to regular army, and the militia is NOT part of that.

2) You making the argument about the regulated militia being the regular army and that being what the authors referencing flying completely in the face of the recent supreme court decision that clearly affirms the second amendment to be an individual right. And see as one of the arguments brought in that suit was that the second amendment did not protect an individual right rather a right of government to arm unit such as the national guard.

3) Your point of the 4th admendment only makes mine stronger. The forth amendment does not read as protecting against search and seizure by the militia. Rather from the government is implied. And militia IS NOT AND WAS NOT considered or thought to be an government entity or regular army. Rather it was thought of and defined then as now as the people. And the reason they are given the second amendment is to protect themselves and their families not only from common crime but also from the government.

[G.A. Heath]

G.A. Health a few thing you are mistaken about:

1) When our founders speak of soldiers they are referring to regular army regulars. But when they are speaking of militia they are speaking of the people. This is not something that I learned from formal education, rather it is something that I figured out myself after doing a little digging, and US law supports it. As for the third amendment supporting your argument it doesn't, again solider refers to regular army, and the militia is NOT part of that.

2) You making the argument about the regulated militia being the regular army and that being what the authors referencing flying completely in the face of the recent supreme court decision that clearly affirms the second amendment to be an individual right. And see as one of the arguments brought in that suit was that the second amendment did not protect an individual right rather a right of government to arm unit such as the national guard.

3) Your point of the 4th admendment only makes mine stronger. The forth amendment does not read as protecting against search and seizure by the militia. Rather from the government is implied. And militia IS NOT AND WAS NOT considered or thought to be an government entity or regular army. Rather it was thought of and defined then as now as the people. And the reason they are given the second amendment is to protect themselves and their families not only from common crime but also from the government.

Uhm, I think you have confused myself with RPB, he's the one you should be replying to. With that said the militia clause does not give basis for regulation of the Second Amendment beyond ensuring that it is properly trained. With that in mind we could actually claim the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) is constitutionally sound. However the the RKBA clause is critical in order to protect the militia from being disarmed by the government. I have to say that I feel we have gone way off the original topic and suggest this discussion be moved into a new thread if it is to continue so as to avoid irritating the mods.