RIGHT TO TRAVEL and 2nd AMENDMENT

Forums: Guns
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Do we all agree that there is a Constitutional right to travel?

The USSC shoud rule that the right to travel
must be taken together with the 2nd Amendment
such as to bring back the practice of the 1800s whereby anyone
coud and did carry his guns with him from State to other State,
the same as carrying his wallet or carring his watch,
free from any government interference.

If he committed a crime (with or without a gun)
then he was held to account and he was penalized therefor.

David

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 846 • Replies: 19

No top replies

bullshit. If you want to come to Massachusetts, leave your gun at home. We don't want it, and we don't want you if you want it. Better yet, don''t come. If you're the conservative you say you are, you've heard of state's rights. That's ours. Stay out.

Really, David, when they talk about a one-trick pony, you are it. Why don't you spend a little more time on your Mensa wine club and get off this tiresome compulsive thing you have about guns.

3 Replies

@MontereyJack,

That's not so: Massachusetts permits carrying of handguns on the direct way to and from a shooting range where you are either a member or a registered guest of a member; the gun must be unloaded and gun and ammo have to be placed in separate (closed) containers. In addition a valid permit must be issued - for me (when I was a MA resident member of my then university's shooting team) this involved a trek to Boston Police HQ where some sergeant rolled all ten of my fingers in a revolting-looking black goop in order to take impressions, but that's the law, so there was nothing to be done about it. MA police accepts - via the interstate commerce clause - valid permits issued in other states.

Additional restrictions may apply for crossing state lines by air or ground transportation, but that's a separate issue.

0 Replies

yeah, HS, i know there are restrictions. this is just another step in Davide's endless campaign for open carry anywhere at any time, in his campaign to arm everyone, including criminals, and then argue we need guns to protect ourselves from everybody he's just advocating arming (I'm not making that up--he seriously wants EVERYONE, including four year olds to carry guns all the time). That is an obssessive.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

bullshit. If you want to come to Massachusetts, leave your gun at home.

No. Every citizen has the right to defend his life and also his other property everywhere and anywhere in America.
Even trucks have the right to travel unimpeded
by plethoras of laws of different jurisdictions
and
u have the right to have your marriage recognized
in every State of the Nation at once, altho there is NO enumerated Constitutional right to marriage.

There IS an enumerated, explicit Constitutional right to carry defensive guns.
A fortiori, u have a better, stronger right to carry guns in every State, than u have to be married in all of them,
or to carry your wallet thru all of them, without question.

MontereyJack wrote:

We don't want it, and we don't want you if you want it.

What u want means NOTHING; it is outranked by the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

MontereyJack wrote:

Better yet, don''t come.

I 'll do what I dam well please. I have some friends there; maybe I 'll go see them if I wanna,
and then LAFF the losses of the liberals.

MontereyJack wrote:

If you're the conservative you say you are, you've heard of state's rights.
That's ours.

PIG VOMIT! Your state has no right to nullify the Bill of Rights.

MontereyJack wrote:

Stay out.

Go stick your head in the toilet.

MontereyJack wrote:

Really, David, when they talk about a one-trick pony, you are it.

Yeah; I enjoy destroying the control of guns
and degrading government.

MontereyJack wrote:

Why don't you spend a little more time on your Mensa wine club and
get off this tiresome compulsive thing you have about guns.

Well, actually, that might happen
because gun control is collapsing like nazism and communism did, real fast.

When gun control is completely gone, as it was in the 1800s,
then I 'll have no further reason to comment on it,
the same as I stopped ranting against the communists
after the collapse of communism in 1991.

David

0 Replies

David, you're being obssessive again.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

yeah, HS, i know there are restrictions. this is just another step in Davide's endless campaign for open carry anywhere at any time, in his campaign to arm everyone, including criminals, and then argue we need guns to protect ourselves from everybody he's just advocating arming (I'm not making that up--he seriously wants EVERYONE, including four year olds to carry guns all the time). That is an obssessive.

U left out something important, Jack:
I have long advocated that feloniously violent recidivists
be BANISHED from the North American Continent (unless the Canadians want them)
and removed from contact with the decent people,
so thay can be as well armed as thay wish ( as thay will anyway )
but NOT in America.

Sneaking back in shoud be a capital offense.

David

0 Replies

And tell me David, where your alleged right to carry a gun for self-defense is enumerated in the Constitution? The only right enumerated there is for use in the militia.

2 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

David, you're being obssessive again.

I probably have a mild case of OCD.
I was obsessed for too many years n decades about a particular chick.

David

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

yeah, HS, i know there are restrictions.
this is just another step in Davide's endless campaign for open carry anywhere at any time,
in his campaign to arm everyone,

Yes, this is true, Jack, but altho my campaign INCLUDES open carry, it is not limited to open carry:
I ardently support, with equal fervor, the Constitutional right of CONCEALED CARRY of defensive guns,
and/or carrying both openly and concealed simultaneously,
at the option of the wearer.

This is a practice that has long been very popular among police in uniform
who carry both openly and concealed back up guns,
nationwide, from Canada to Mexico, from sea to shining sea.

David

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And tell me David, where your alleged right to carry a gun for self-defense is enumerated in the Constitution?
The only right enumerated there is for use in the militia.

In the 2nd Amendment and in the 9th Amendment, taken in combination with the English Bill of Rights of 1689.
Your understanding of that right is deeply distorted, in error.
We know from the surviving writings of the Founders
that thay were significantly to the right of the NRA leadership.

To analogize,
it woud be like saying that u have the individual right
to keep and carry a fire extinguisher, but even so,
u can still join a volunteer fire department, if u wanna.
The militia of Article I Section 8 of the Constitution
are obviously "selected militia" government militia.
In contrast,
the term of art meaning private militia was "well regulated militia".

In theory, the militia of the 2nd Amendment
coud be brought into military conflict with the militia of Article I Section 8.

Something a little like that actually happened in New York City in the 1840s
when 2 rival police departments went to war against one another.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Do we all agree that there is a Constitutional right to travel?

The USSC shoud rule that the right to travel
must be taken together with the 2nd Amendment
such as to bring back the practice of the 1800s whereby anyone
coud and did carry his guns with him from State to other State,
the same as carrying his wallet or carring his watch,
free from any government interference.

If he committed a crime (with or without a gun)
then he was held to account and he was penalized therefor.

David

It is likely that one consequence of the pending Supreme Court ruling extending the Heller ruling to state and local governments will be nationwide concealed carry. Will take a few years for the lawsuits to work their way through the system however.

Probably the first to fall will be all the assault weapons bans. Nationwide concealed carry will come after that.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

bullshit. If you want to come to Massachusetts, leave your gun at home. We don't want it, and we don't want you if you want it. Better yet, don''t come. If you're the conservative you say you are, you've heard of state's rights. That's ours. Stay out.

States don't have any right to violate people's civil rights.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

And tell me David, where your alleged right to carry a gun for self-defense is enumerated in the Constitution? The only right enumerated there is for use in the militia.

Rights don't have to be enumerated. Check the Ninth Amendment.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:
And tell me David, where your alleged right to carry a gun for self-defense is enumerated in the Constitution?
The only right enumerated there is for use in the militia.

Rights don't have to be enumerated. Check the Ninth Amendment.

Unlike the militia of Article I Section 8, which very clearly are government militia,
the militia of the 2nd Amendment were PRIVATE fellows, the guys in the neighborhood,
like a volunteer fire department. The phase "well regulated militia" was a term of art that
meant private militia, for defensive purposes.

As the USSC correctly reasoned, analyzing both the history
and the grammatical syntax of the 2nd Amendment in the HELLER case,
the central component of the 2nd Amendment was self defense.

David

1 Reply

@oralloy,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Do we all agree that there is a Constitutional right to travel?

The USSC shoud rule that the right to travel
must be taken together with the 2nd Amendment
such as to bring back the practice of the 1800s whereby anyone
coud and did carry his guns with him from State to other State,
the same as carrying his wallet or carring his watch,
free from any government interference.

If he committed a crime (with or without a gun)
then he was held to account and he was penalized therefor.

David

oralloy wrote:

It is likely that one consequence of the pending Supreme Court ruling extending the Heller ruling to state and local governments will be nationwide concealed carry. Will take a few years for the lawsuits to work their way through the system however.

Probably the first to fall will be all the assault weapons bans. Nationwide concealed carry will come after that.

YES; I understand that the federal district court judge on whose docket the case
of SYKES & SECOND AMENDMENT FOUNDATION v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY reposes,
has said that if the USSC applies the HELLER case
to limit the State governments in the McDONALD case,
then he will grant summary judgment
in favor of concealed carry of guns in public places.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

oralloy wrote:
MontereyJack wrote:
And tell me David, where your alleged right to carry a gun for self-defense is enumerated in the Constitution?
The only right enumerated there is for use in the militia.

Rights don't have to be enumerated. Check the Ninth Amendment.
Unlike the militia of Article I Section 8, which very clearly are government militia,
the militia of the 2nd Amendment were PRIVATE fellows, the guys in the neighborhood,
like a volunteer fire department. The phase "well regulated militia" was a term of art that
meant private militia, for defensive purposes.

As the USSC correctly reasoned, analyzing both the history
and the grammatical syntax of the 2nd Amendment in the HELLER case,
the central component of the 2nd Amendment was self defense.

David

Actually it was all the same militia. The militia was supposed to be both composed of the general populace and controlled by the government.

The Framers knew the government would have to exercise armed force in order to be relevant. However, they feared that if there were people with a career dedicated to exercising force for the government, those people would carry out tyrannical orders.

However, if the ordinary people had the armed power, and the government had to get the help of ordinary people in order to exercise armed force, then there would be a check against tyranny, as people would be unlikely to impose tyranny on themselves.

So the militia was both composed of the general populace and controlled by the government at the same time. It recognized that the government would need to exercise armed force, and was conceived as a "safe" way to enable the government to do so.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Would that include the right to carry weapons on an airplane?

If we could get rid of those annoying security lines, I would be all in favor.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

There were multiple militia.
Indeed, in NYC, in the 1840s, 2 new police departments went to war against one another.

David

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Would that include the right to carry weapons on an airplane?

If we could get rid of those annoying security lines, I would be all in favor.

YES

0 Replies

RIGHT TO TRAVEL and 2nd AMENDMENT

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know