Sorry--I was WRONG!!

[38-44HD45]

First, it's unalienable, not inalienable rights. And there is nothing in either the Declaration of Independance or the Constitution about "behind bars". The unalienable thing is in the DofI and not the Constitution BTW.

Regarding the courts, our system of government has three co-equal branches, legislative, executive and judicial. The "judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..." Deciding what the Constitution is and means is clearly the domain of our courts, up to and including the Supreme Court.

You have to have an understanding of the base documents before you start interpreting rights and privileges.

Bob

Actually, Bob, it is "inalienable." Sorry. You are correct about the function of the courts, of course. Problem is, some of the folks in black dresses aren't real sharp. I know; I deal with them every single day.

 

[wheelgun1958]

I've posted in numerous threads that I thought that anyone that wasn't behind bars had an inalienable right to all their rights in the BILL OF RIGHTS.
And I also said whenever the courts decided to take a right from a free man, then it was an unconstitutional law.
But alot of people think that it is fine.

So now I got to say I was wrong.

WRONG to think AMERICANS would ever bow down to government and give away their RIGHTS for government PRIVLEDGES!

Such as -
I have the privilege to keep and bare arms.(I have a permit that says I can!)
Unless I commit an offence that the government objects to.
Then I will lose the privilege to own guns.

It's like my privilege to drive on public roads and highways.
I have a licence that gives me that privilege.
Unless I break a law that results with me losing my privileges to drive.

Can you see a difference yet?

The biggest difference is that your drivers license allows you to drive in any state in the union as long as you abide the local laws. It's called reciprocity. Try that with your chl!

 

[bk43]

Actually, Bob, it is "inalienable." Sorry.

At times it's helpful to read the entire thread before hitting the Post Reply button. We already went there.

Bob

 

[38-44HD45]

Mea culpa, Bob.

 

[bk43]

No mea culpa necessary, at least with me, as I've done it.

BTW, the difference between inalienable and unalienable rights is important. Even though the terms are considered interchangeable by some today, they were not in 1776. If you follow the framing of the Declaration from Mason through final passage, it is clear the terms are used to define your stand on slavery. Some historians consider this debate the opening salvo in what would become the War of Northern Aggression(Civil War if you prefer) almost 100 years later.

Bob

 

[Louis]

I've posted in numerous threads that I thought that anyone that wasn't behind bars had an inalienable right to all their rights in the BILL OF RIGHTS.
And I also said whenever the courts decided to take a right from a free man, then it was an unconstitutional law.
But alot of people think that it is fine.

So now I got to say I was wrong.

WRONG to think AMERICANS would ever bow down to government and give away their RIGHTS for government PRIVLEDGES!

Such as -
I have the privilege to keep and bare arms.(I have a permit that says I can!)
Unless I commit an offence that the government objects to.
Then I will lose the privilege to own guns.

It's like my privilege to drive on public roads and highways.
I have a licence that gives me that privilege.
Unless I break a law that results with me losing my privileges to drive.

Can you see a difference yet?

And I'm sorry.
Sorry that there is so many people that don't understand the difference between RIGHTS and PRIVILEGES.
Because it is those that don't know,,, that makes it so easy for the government to pass unconstitutional laws!!

We drive on public highways, and so the state governments have some right to regulate and tax us. If we only drive on private roads, we do not need a license.

But gun ownership and bearing of arms is a right both acknowleged and protected by the Second Amendment.

Regards,

 

[handejector]

I have the privilege to keep and bare arms.(I have a permit that says I can!)

Of course you can wear a sleeveless shirt and bare your arms. It might not be in good taste, but you have that right.
I don't have a permit to bare mine, but I always wear shirts with sleeves.

Willy, you are just plain argumentative. Instead of picking fights here, why not get out in the world and educate anti gunners?

The next time you have something constructive to add, feel free.