Confused

U

USP45usp

Moderator
Before I move and have to set up another internet connection, just have some questions to help me with some confusion I have:

Some is gun related, some not.


1) Case in point: The people of a State or county/city vote, by ballot, to legalize such things as marijuana (mostly for medical purposes) and assisted suicide for terminally ill people. This was voted on by the People and passed. Yet, the federal government says that it will still prosecute anyone or any doctor if they use it. Who has the last say? The People, the State or the federal government?

2) State law vs. federal law: In some States, a felon can regain his/her gun Rights back after five (or more) years if they live as honest citizens during that time. Now, according to the State law, you can own/have a gun. But, according to federal, they are still banned unless they (the feds) give back those Rights. Which law prevales?

3) Rights: When do you recieve them. Students and even small children are afforded some Rights when they are born (or so it seems). Right to privacy, right to speech, right to assemble (but this one is always being attacked), right to worship, etc. But, they have to reach a certain age before they are afforded other Rights, the 2nd readily comes to mind. When does one "recieve" thier Rights, upon being born or upon reaching a certain age?

4) Treason vs BoR's: Now, we do have (or had) Rights guranting our right to free speech, etc.. But where does this turn from a Right to an act of Treason. Take HCI or VPC (among others). I agree they have the right to say their opinion. But do they have the Right to act upon that opinion and help create laws that would be considered unConstitutional which in effect treason. Also, can one take them to court using the BoR's, to me, their bad mouthing my Right and causing me to spend my hard earned money to fight them is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Why should I have to give up 38% of my income to people that don't work for a living (the government, both state and federal), and then have to give up another 10% to fight an organization that is trying to take away Rights I already have. To keep it gun related, I didn't mention the 10% I give to other organizations to help battle the federal government from taking/restricting my other Rights, hobbies and vices.

Thanks all. I don't know when I'll be moving but I will miss you until I get back on line (go ahead and reply, I should be on for another couple of days).

USP45usp
 
1: The People, according to Article 10 of the BoR. There is no Constitutional mandate for the Feds to restrict drug use.

2: State law supersedes Federal law in cases where the Feds have, again, no Constitutional mandate. Since the Feds absolutely may not restrict a person's RKBA, it's up to that person's state government whether to restore any or all of his rights after his debt is paid.

3: At birth. There's no magic day on which one is automatically a responsible adult.

4: Discussion of abridgement of natural rights is not treason and is protected by 1A. Actually planning or attempting to deprive a person or group of persons of a natural right is a violation of the BoR, which is part and parcel of the Constitution. That's when it turns to treason: not when you talk about taking my guns, but when you actually try to do it.

Whew! ;)
 
#1 & 2 -- Coinneach's answers work in the theoretical and ideal world. In the actual world, the one we live in, the feds win.

#3 -- Born with natural rights, but not with the ability to excercise them. For example, the right to free speech is limited to those who can talk. Babies have the right but not the ability to excercise the right. Thus, some rights may be present at birth but may not be excercised until later. (And there's your common sense answer to the 2nd; don't give a kid a gun until he's big enough to shoot straight.)

#4, Coinneach's answer works. Those groups should be working on the Constitutional level (legitimate use of free speech and political freedom) instead of trying to end run around the Constitution (treason). No one is going to prosecute these folks for it, though.

pax

"Americans will put up with anything provided it doesn't block traffic." -- Dan Rather
 
Originally posted by USP45usp:
1) Case in point: The people of a State or county/city vote, by ballot, to legalize such things as marijuana (mostly for medical purposes) and assisted suicide for terminally ill people. This was voted on by the People and passed. Yet, the federal government says that it will still prosecute anyone or any doctor if they use it. Who has the last say? The People, the State or the federal government?
---------------
Those who have (bigger) guns and the will to use them, rule.
-------------------------------
2) State law vs. federal law: In some States, a felon can regain his/her gun Rights back after five (or more) years if they live as honest citizens during that time. Now, according to the State law, you can own/have a gun. But, according to federal, they are still banned unless they (the feds) give back those Rights. Which law prevales?
----------------------
Depends upon what statute one has been convicted under: if the state, you can petition the state to strike down the conviction record. No such provision is available for federal convictions, so that's forever- or until the feral givernment collapses.
---------------------------------
3) Rights: When do you recieve them. Students and even small children are afforded some Rights when they are born (or so it seems). Right to privacy, right to speech, right to assemble (but this one is always being attacked), right to worship, etc. But, they have to reach a certain age before they are afforded other Rights, the 2nd readily comes to mind. When does one "recieve" thier Rights, upon being born or upon reaching a certain age?
---------
Inalienable rights we receive from God when born; most other civil rights as well, except those which are specifically age-dependent
(when constitutional.)
------------------
4) Treason vs BoR's: Now, we do have (or had) Rights guranting our right to free speech, etc.. But where does this turn from a Right to an act of Treason. Take HCI or VPC (among others). I agree they have the right to say their opinion. But do they have the Right to act upon that opinion and help create laws that would be considered unConstitutional which in effect treason. ---------
They have the right to agitate for your enslavement, and you have the right to self-defense againts your would-be slave-owners.
---------------
Also, can one take them to court using the BoR's, to me, their bad mouthing my Right and causing me to spend my hard earned money to fight them is Cruel and Unusual Punishment. ---------
Why would you be interested in futility?
If courts could help you, the athmosphere
in the coutry would have been such as to make
the anti-gun agitation a suicide and absurdity. It is not, because the Constitutional Republic has long been subverted and murdered, and the courts are the part of the lynch mob.
-------------------



------------------
LowClassCat
Always willing to calculate my chances
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top