McDonald vs Chicagoe--A Pandora's Box?

[Kid Stanislaus]

We are on the verge of greatly expanding the power of the federal judiciary.

http://gunowners.org/op12112009kb.htm

[CABilly]

Except that, unlike animal slaughter, there is explicit language in the Constitution regarding RKBA. Those other issues are irrelevant in this instance and would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Sounds more like stirring the pot than sounding an actual alarm.

[wildhawker]

More GOC/GOA garbage.

We read the amicus, Sam- having trouble with dreaming up some new material or is money tight over there in "don't get anything done (except piss off governors) land"?

[bwiese]

Some gunowners just can't handle freedoms in other areas, their pet causes may get run over.

[hoffmang]

This would be the debunking of that article which originally appeared in the Washington Times last week.

Some people confuse positive rights with negative rights. The P or I clause only protects negative rights. The problem is that a lot of the people whinging about the issue don't like the negative rights either.

Further, I kind of like the unenumerated right to Self Defense. Otherwise California could punish the discharge of a firearm with death while upholding your right to own and carry it...

-Gene

[Gray Peterson]

I said it for many many years before: GOA is an enemy of liberty. The fact that they reached outside of the gun issues and started treading outside of gun issues shows that they are allied with the Neo-Confederate faction.

As for Ken Blackwell, the other writer.....

Ken Blackwell- the joke from Ohio? He's a piece of ****. So I'm gonna have to go with reason on this one.

Amen, John Cosmo Jackson.

[an actual gun]

People are just freaking out over the 14th amendment implications, et al. Seems like some people only like the Constitution when its interpretation is slanted is in their favor.

And I hope this doesn't come off as slanderous, but it seems to me like the GOA has been acting as an habitual pot stirrer for some time now.

[GrizzlyGuy]

See the article I linked to here, it thoroughly describes how the GOA scenario is NOT going to happen.

WARNING: The intro I excerpted in post #1 is the nightmare scenario that GOA is talking about. That's just a sensationalist hook to get people into the article, kind of like a trailer for a Terminator movie where you see the evil Terminator doing all kinds of nasty stuff. But just like in a Terminator movie, the forces of good overcome, and the article has a happy-happy ending.

If you want to skip straight to the happy ending, I posted it further down the thread here.

P.S. - I thought this short article did a good job explaining the difference between positive rights and negative rights.

[aileron]

And I hope this doesn't come off as slanderous, but it seems to me like the GOA has been acting as an habitual pot stirrer for some time now.

And... some people like them for it.

Since I've known of the GOA they have appeared as a pot stirrer to me. I also think they are partly responsible for some of the anti-NRA babble that goes on.

[hoffmang]

P.S. - I thought this short article did a good job explaining the difference between positive rights and negative rights.

I think it does a pretty crappy job of explaining positive liberty. Positive liberty doesn't really mean "the freedom to speak." The US system assumes all Positive Liberty is inherent in the individual and he or she gives up some of that to enter into a government to solve collective action problems. Thus the government's constraint is the negative liberties outlined in the Constitution and Amendments. The Freedom of Speech in the US is a negative liberty (Congress shall make no law.)

-Gene

[wash]

I'll open up that box.

[GrizzlyGuy]

I think it does a pretty crappy job of explaining positive liberty. Positive liberty doesn't really mean "the freedom to speak." The US system assumes all Positive Liberty is inherent in the individual and he or she gives up some of that to enter into a government to solve collective action problems. Thus the government's constraint is the negative liberties outlined in the Constitution and Amendments. The Freedom of Speech in the US is a negative liberty (Congress shall make no law.)

-Gene

Yes, he did use a poor example of a positive right. Maybe this is a better example from 264.2 PC:

The victim shall have the right to have a sexual assault counselor, as defined in Section 1035.2 of the Evidence Code, and a support person of the victim's choosing present at any medical evidentiary or physical examination.

Our state government is granting you an entitlement to something (a counselor and support person) via the positive right stated in the statute. That right isn't a natural right, nor is it present in the federal constitution. I can't think of a corresponding negative right that would prevent California from providing that positive right. It happens to be conditional since you need to be a victim of that crime to gain the right, but other positive rights might be unconditional.

Here is another positive right example, more controversial, from NH's state constitution:

[Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

It includes the phrase "and public liberty manifestly endangered", so one could infer that that this positive right is unnecessary if a negative right to "public liberty" or just "liberty" exists. Such a negative right does exist, per that same bill of rights:

[Natural Rights.] All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property; and, in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by this state on account of race, creed, color, sex or national origin.

So I guess the great state of New Hampshire is hedging its bets by making sure, via both positive and negative rights, that revolution is a last-ditch right available to its citizens.

What a great state. Live Free or Die!

[hoffmang]

There is a concept in Coryfield that we are due the protection of government (since that's the reason we have it in the first place.) However, I expect that's a pretty limited right. Due process rights like the one you quote from 264.2 PC are pretty common and much like the right to a jury trial which implies a not so fun duty to serve on a jury or grand jury.

-Gene

[GrizzlyGuy]

The P or I clause only protects negative rights.

Gene, could you please point me toward some source info for what you said there? I'm not getting that from 14A itself, and only finding info that suggests positive rights would be protected as well. Maybe this is just an issue of semantics where one person's positive vs. negative right definition might differ from someone else's.

[kcbrown]

The difference between a negative liberty/right and a positive one seems pretty clear to me:

A negative liberty/right is an individual's entitlement to take an action himself. For this liberty/right to be abridged, some law must be passed restricting it or forbidding it.

A positive liberty/right is an individual's entitlement to the actions of someone else, or the fruits of those actions. For one to have this liberty/right, it must be codified into law.

So negative liberties/rights are those which you would have absent any imposed constraints, while positive liberties/rights are those which you would not have without the imposition of law.


It somehow seems to me that there should be some better (clearer) terminology used to name these than "negative" or "positive" liberties/rights, but nothing immediately comes to my mind...