PDA

View Full Version : What about Civil Rights


DEVOREGUNNER
07-23-2012, 3:59 PM
Some time ago someone posted about Gun Rights being a Civil Right. I have been giving it some thought and I am beginning to think they may just be right. Is the Second Amendment a Civil Right?

If an individual or class of individuals is/are denied something (a right) that another individual or class of individuals in a same or similar circumstance are allowed has a civil right violation has occurred? Is this not the essence of what Civil Rights law is all about?

And if this is true why can a city or a state limit those rights when another individual or class of individuals in a same or similar circumstance but in a different city or state not have their rights limited.

LTC, bullet button, magazine capacity, roster etc come to mind. What am I missing here?

IANL obviously.

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 4:02 PM
http://www.hawaiidefensefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CGF-Banner-512x116.jpg

DEVOREGUNNER
07-23-2012, 4:07 PM
Brandon, I hear you LOUD and CLEAR but is this the legal crack in the wall that can be exploited?

IVC
07-23-2012, 4:08 PM
Is the Second Amendment a Civil Right?

Absolutely. Look up the "Bill of Rights" and you will see it's the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The second amendment is squarely in that category and a civil right.

The issue had been whether it applied "collectively" to militias. It has been answered once and for all in Heller in 2008 - it's a fundamental individual human right.

If an individual or class of individuals is/are denied something (a right) that another individual or class of individuals in a same or similar circumstance are allowed has civil right violation has occurred. Is this not the essence of what Civil Rights law is all about?

Almost. Civil rights can be limited when they affect someone else's civil rights and this is not infringement or violation. Hence most political speech is protected under 1A, but slander and libel are not.

Context is everything. In your scenario, most likely it is a violation (separate but equal, etc.).

And if this is true why can a city or a state limit those rights when another individual or class of individuals in a same or similar circumstance but in a different city or state not have their rights limited.

This must be challenged in a court of law. Until there is a binding ruling, it's just your word against their. This is exactly what is happening right now nationwide with all the lawsuits.

wildhawker
07-23-2012, 4:11 PM
Brandon, I hear you LOUD and CLEAR but is this the legal crack in the wall that can be exploited?

We adopted that because *it's what we do*, and what *we've been doing*.

See: http://wiki.calgunsfoundation.org/Litigation_Past_and_Present

You're asking the right questions but in the wrong temporal context.

-Brandon

RJohnson
07-23-2012, 4:24 PM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.

HowardW56
07-23-2012, 4:52 PM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.

Thank you for making us all aware of YOUR views.

Do you have a source to substantiate the shifting of the majority view on gun control?

IVC
07-23-2012, 5:03 PM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.

Gun rights are the rights of the people who got slaughtered to defend themselves against the shooter, not the other way around. They were already disarmed - you cannot disarm the victims more than they were at the theater.

To be more precise, it's the right to self defense that matters, not the guns. Even the second amendment mentions "arms," not "guns." Guns are just the most current form of arms suitable for self defense which is what it's all about. And, it's constitutionally protected, so your opinion is not worth even the usual 2C.

d4v0s
07-23-2012, 7:28 PM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.

I disagree completely. I have been talked to several times since friday about friends finally picking up a gun and defending their families (small town, well known gun nut). Here is the basic idea that folks are seeing..

"he was a normal person and just snapped, no amount of controls would have stopped him, I think its time that we arm ourselves just in case something like this was ever directed at our family."

People are starting to see that crazy happens, you either bury your head in the sand or start being a patriot. Gun control is under 26% acceptance nationally right now, it will go lower...

Odd
07-23-2012, 7:28 PM
Some time ago someone posted about Gun Rights being a Civil Right. I have been giving it some thought and I am beginning to think they may just be right. Is the Second Amendment a Civil Right?
The foundation of all civil rights is the right of an individual to live life as he deems fit, free from the meddling and discrimination of others. So yes, the 2A is also a civil right seeing as meddling in the lives of and discrimination against gun owners is the raison d'etre of the gun control crowd.

And if this is true why can a city or a state limit those rights when another individual or class of individuals in a same or similar circumstance but in a different city or state not have their rights limited.

LTC, bullet button, magazine capacity, roster etc come to mind. What am I missing here?

IANL obviously.
As for why there are limits to these rights, there are four factors: The politicians elected to power write and pass the laws, the police enforce the laws and the court punishes those who break the laws. The last one is the people, ultimately they outnumber the other three and it is up to them whether to obey the laws or revolt against them. As stupid as some laws are, as long as all four of the above are in agreement with the laws, the stupid laws have substance. Say for example an idiot legislator makes a law banning something and it is passed. If the police choose to turn a blind eye, the judge refuses to sentence the violators or over 1/2 of the population refuse to comply, that law becomes powerless: Checks and balances. Even if the antis have more politicians (or the politicians control more people), there's still other ways to win the fight.

stix213
07-23-2012, 8:05 PM
If gun rights aren't a civil right then James Madison is going to be pissed that he screwed up the name of the Bill of Rights.

hoffmang
07-23-2012, 8:22 PM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.

Support for gun control continued to erode after the Giffords shooting. Nothing in this incident will change the ongoing trend.

What I find interesting is how much better and louder the counter conversation from our side is than it was back in the e.g. Columbine days.

-Gene

Arisaka
07-23-2012, 9:00 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Rjohnson is an anti. Geez man, I'm a family member of victims of "gun violence" and I'm all about gun rights.

Arisaka
07-23-2012, 9:01 PM
What do you know about "victims families"? You certainly don't speak for me.

Left Coast Conservative
07-23-2012, 9:17 PM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.

Try making that argument in a court. "Majority view" means much less in a Federal court than it does in the main stream media, or in a political race. You are, sir, simply way behind the litigation times.

"Assault weapon", is a term of political art, not a description of any type of an actual rifle. "Assault weapons" are nothing more than a semi-automatic rifles with certain "scary" cosmetic features. Such rifles are, in my opinion, the quintessential "militia rifles" and as such even more protected from legal restrictions than are handguns under the 2008 Heller decision.

We gun owners do not dismiss the grief of the relatives of the Aurora shootings, quite the opposite in fact. But we will not sacrifice our rights in the face of gratuitous pandering to collective guilt.

Left Coast Conservative
07-23-2012, 9:27 PM
Support for gun control continued to erode after the Giffords shooting. Nothing in this incident will change the ongoing trend.
-Gene

Yes, indeed! I find myself amazed at how much the comments on the Huffington post for this article (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/aurora-shooting-gun-control_b_1691788.html) revolve around mental illness as the key factor in this tragedy as opposed to the availability of the weapons used in the attack.

Could this be a watershed???

creekside
07-23-2012, 9:38 PM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.

The human right is to defend yourself and your loved ones from being murdered. Yes, self defense is a human right.

The civil right is to have access to the tools of self defense.

Now put down your libel keyboard and turn off your obscenity monitor, because there is no such thing as an "assault" rifle.

stix213
07-24-2012, 3:59 AM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Rjohnson is an anti. Geez man, I'm a family member of victims of "gun violence" and I'm all about gun rights.

RJohnson isn't just an anti, he's delusional.

From what I learned from friends in Sac today OLLs. BBs, mag repair kits, mag parts, and gun parts (uppers etc), will all be banned soon.

The only surprise is he didn't say the ban would happen in 2 weeks....

SilverTauron
07-24-2012, 7:08 AM
Some time ago someone posted about Gun Rights being a Civil Right. I have been giving it some thought and I am beginning to think they may just be right. Is the Second Amendment a Civil Right?
Yes, although that right has been outlawed in certain states in America.



If an individual or class of individuals is/are denied something (a right) that another individual or class of individuals in a same or similar circumstance are allowed has a civil right violation has occurred? Is this not the essence of what Civil Rights law is all about?

From a logical standpoint this is true. It must be stated however, that logic is not the foundation for decisions made by the electorate and who they pick to represent them. A civil right is meaningless if a population believes exercising it should be outlawed.


And if this is true why can a city or a state limit those rights when another individual or class of individuals in a same or similar circumstance but in a different city or state not have their rights limited.

LTC, bullet button, magazine capacity, roster etc come to mind. What am I missing here?

IANL obviously.

Two words.

"Public Safety"

Supporters of such regulations are generally believe that the average human being is incapable of regulating their own affairs. People of this ilk are of the mindset that its government's DUTY to ensure the safety of a population-and no one else's. A Texas resident believes the individual has the right to defend themselves. A typical resident of California sees the lack of gun laws in Texas as an abdication of their state governments "Duty" to protect its citizens. This is why:

Anti-gun people are committed to the goal of everyone being disarmed everywhere. If one state permits legal carry, then it is a government which is "failing" its primary duty of protection of the electorate to the Disarmanent Lobby's mindset.

Gun control law supporters view states like Wyoming and Florida as "backwards";no AWB, no roster, no 10 day waiting period, no State Registration? Doesn't Florida's government want to PROTECT its people? They must be suicidal or barbaric!

As such, with that mindset in effect you can understand why people who ordinarily protest civil rights infringements in any respect are in such a hurry to cede their right to keep and bear arms-and everyone else's if they could. These people view the loss of the RKBA as a necessary task for public safety.

Demonicspire
07-24-2012, 7:18 AM
I'm not sure that the civil right argument works in this case. Most of those rulings tend to relate to denying one specific class of people, based on a discriminatory criterion (race, age, religion, etc) a civil right, whereas gun bans are applied without regards to those things.

vantec08
07-24-2012, 7:23 AM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.


so . .. . . . it was a select fire weapon (illegal since 1936)? fired on full auto?

vantec08
07-24-2012, 7:36 AM
Yes, OP, your take is spot on. Hand the entire rights bag back to antis by using the 1st amendment as an example - - - register and pay a fee to acquire a computer or a pencil etc. I take it a step farther: those who scheme and attempt to interfere with the 2nd are committing a criminal act worthy of prosecution for attempting to violate civil rights.

HowardW56
07-24-2012, 7:45 AM
I'm not sure that the civil right argument works in this case. Most of those rulings tend to relate to denying one specific class of people, based on a discriminatory criterion (race, age, religion, etc) a civil right, whereas gun bans are applied without regards to those things.

"At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the Government‘s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs…."
Benson Everett Legg
United States District Judge

IVC
07-24-2012, 8:25 AM
I'm not sure that the civil right argument works in this case. Most of those rulings tend to relate to denying one specific class of people, based on a discriminatory criterion (race, age, religion, etc) a civil right, whereas gun bans are applied without regards to those things.

The only problem with your statement is that the gun rights are explicitly protected by the Constitution which makes them a civil right even if some disagree that they should be.

This is even without going into the detail of the human rights, which predate any constitution and are independent of the organization of a society. For example, we say "North Korea infringes on the free speech," instead of "There is no first amendment in North Korea, so it's not infringement." Some rights are inherent and don't depend on the society. Self defense and posession of tools for self defense is one such right.

greybeard
07-24-2012, 9:38 AM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.
I heard on the news this morning Colorado, set a record for background checks this weekend, I guess they did not get the word.

vantec08
07-24-2012, 9:41 AM
I heard on the news this morning Colorado, set a record for background checks this weekend, I guess they did not get the word.

http://www.alternet.org/rss/breaking_news/1048316/colorado_gun_sales__soar_after_mass_shooting%3A_re port/

Flopper
07-24-2012, 9:52 AM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.

You used to have a non-bullet buttoned RAW--I hope you have rid yourself of that "WMD" so more tragedies can me averted.

greybeard
07-24-2012, 11:05 AM
Vantec08 thinks for the confirmation

Kukuforguns
07-24-2012, 11:41 AM
CIVIL RIGHT
civil right. (usu. pl.) (17c) 1. The individual rights of personal liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and by the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th Amendments, as well as by legislation such as the Voting Rights Act. • Civil rights include esp. the right to vote, the right of due process, and the right of equal protection under the law. [Cases: Civil Rights ​1027.] 2. civil liberty.
CIVIL RIGHT, Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). Please note that pretty much every lawyer is familiar with Black's Law Dictionary. It is not legal authority as such, but it could be considered extremely persuasive evidence regarding the meaning of a phrase.

So, yes, the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right.

USMCM16A2
07-24-2012, 2:00 PM
Folks,


I see our slimely professed LEO is crawling amongst the feet the great at Calguns again. RJ it is POS law enforcement like your ilk, is exactly WHY the citizens need to be armed. It is the egotisitical scumbags like you, Bratton, and Baca, and your poison ideas are what the people need to be alert to. This not to say that ALL LEOs are bad, because obviously they are not, I have friends that are LAPD and Sheriff and they say guys like you give them a bad rap. So go back down that hole you came out of, and piss off,azzhole. A2

USMCM16A2
07-24-2012, 2:04 PM
RJohnson,



Are you Adam Keigan?

adampolo13
07-24-2012, 2:11 PM
So called "gun rights" mean less to the victims or their loved ones than to self centered gun owners. It appears as a result of this latest slaughter by an assault weapon the majority view is shifting towards accepting more control.

In follow up to your post can you please provide some statistical data as well as documented legal cases proving your point. While there has been an uproar in media coverage about guns in the last few days, trend for many years (nation wide) has been increased gun ownership, decreased crime, and more support for the NRA. Please read the articles coming out of CO right now. People are buying guns like never before and it isn't likely going to stop. Look at Canada, after years of strict regulation they are doing an about face. People just don't believe the cry "guns are bad and should go away." The reality is that, for a number of reasons, morality in our country is going down the crapper and people don't feel safe anymore. The reality is guns are not going anywhere, get used to it!