Stream

Join this community to post or comment

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
9
1
John Lloyd Scharf's profile photoAlan Lovejoy's profile photo
18 comments
 
+Daniel Maldonado I'm not a philosopher-king or "central planner." I have no grand vision that I seek to impose on others. All I ask is that I not be forced by violence or threats of violence to do that which I do not wish to do.

Some people respond to that by stating that they do not want to live in my world where all transactions and interactions between people are strictly voluntary and consensual. My response to that is simply that I do not wish to live in their authoritarian world of coercion and control. They object to living by my preferred principles, but have no problem imposing theirs on me.

My ethic, at least, applies the same principles and rules to everyone equally, symmetrically and reciprocally. And does so without logical contradiction: I claim no authority that I do not acknowledge with equal force and validity for others.

What I want is a free society, not some ideology, policy or set of policies dictated by anyone in particular. Not something implemented by political edict, by some law passed by some legislature, by some order or command promulgated by some President or king.

What I want is what you get when people act on their own, entirely without central direction, and using their own property, utilizing human associations of their own creation and in their own interest as they understand it.

What I want is the spontaneous order and beauty that arises naturally in the absence of political control.

There's no need to have a state in order for people to cooperate and collaborate together to defend against those who act unethically.

Anarchists believe that no person has an exemption from morality, and we believe that no person has the right to violently rule over others, and we believe that all interactions between people should be voluntary and peaceful. To achieve an anarchical society, all that's required is to implement a society based on those beliefs, and where a controlling majority of said society is strongly committed to those beliefs. There is simply no way that doing that would lead to violent chaos.

Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won’t kill, injure, kidnap, defraud, or steal from others. But having a state--a monopoly on making law, enforcing law, and judging law--is a guarantee that some will.

"No doubt, anarchy, once established, might not last forever. But if your house is on fire, the sensible course of action is to put out the fire, even though this extinguishment provides no guarantee that the house will never catch fire again." ~ Robert Higgs
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
The power to decide what the law means, and how it applies to specific cases, can and will be used to make Constitutions and democratic elections irrelevant.
image from dailybruin.org On August 8th a hearing is scheduled for the case of Ulissies Garcia et al v Kamala D. Harris( Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM ) . The case concerns bill SB 707, which bans people with concealed carry pe...
7
3
John Lloyd Scharf's profile photoMike2020able's profile photo
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
 
Simply put, the federal government may not constitutionally act in any way that limits the right to keep and bear arms. That means all federal gun control measures, all of them, including the acts of 1934 and 1968 are unconstitutional, and they should be treated that way too.”

https://voicesofliberty.com/2016/05/23/how-many-federal-gun-control-measures-are-constitutional-zero/
May 23, 2016—Michael Boldin, founder and executive director of the Tenth Amendment Center, explains in less than a minute why every single federal gun control measure on the books is unconstitution…
9
Douglas Waterman's profile photo
18 comments
 
+John Lloyd Scharf , Angola made islam illegal. Other African countries may follow soon. North Africa has been taken over by muslims. They have slaves, and non-muslims have little to no human rights there. 
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
Neither the left nor the right will like this one.

Good. Let the butthurt flow through you. Rights are universal.
Illegal aliens can now claim Second Amendment rights to own guns in violation of federal law, according to a federal appeals court.
11
2
A. Joe's profile photoPeter William Lount's profile photo
31 comments
 
Nonsense.
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
California's new law is a clear violation of Article III, Section 10, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, which prohibits the States from enacting bills of attainder => http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/bill_attainder.htm
17
10
Joel Moran's profile photo
 
So glad I don't live in that rat hole state!
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” ~ George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
8
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
In late Eighteenth Century American English, a "militia" means all able-bodied males over 18, and a "well regulated" one is where the members of the militia are regularly trained, regularly taught how to act cohesively in a war situation under military discipline, who regularly rehearse the use of their weapons and effective joint action as military units, and who are well equipped to act as soldiers in defense of the nation.
we are in an ideological struggle with gun control advocates attempting to alter the meaning of the Second Amendment in order to allow for federal restrictions on our right to bear arms.
9
4
I AM THE BEAST Sssotlohiefmjn's profile photoJohn Lloyd Scharf's profile photo
8 comments
 
+I AM THE BEAST Sssotlohiefmjn The Geneva Convention says 15 qualifies for induction. Training can begin at eight under supervision. 
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
"Jimmy Carter appointee Cabranes clearly understands that the U.S. Supreme court held in Heller that firearms “in common use” by citizens “for lawful purposes like self‐defense” are clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

He then completely ignores that reality to come to his decision, and lies (makes a claim that is not remotely factually true) regarding their criminal use to support his decision."
2nd U.S. Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes ignored settled law and even lied to support blatantly unconstitutional gun laws, and should be impeached.
13
4
Matthew Oakey's profile photo
3 comments
 
And most of the Senate needs to be Impeached also !!!
ANY who are lawyers and members of the bar need to be cleansed from ANY Office of Government !!!
Add a comment...

DystopianEmpire01

Constitutional Law  - 
 
Published on Oct 14, 2015
Join TAC, Support Liberty!http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/members
Simply put, the federal government may not constitutionally act in any way that limits the right to keep and bear arms.
1
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
5
1
Perry Trevithick's profile photoJoseph Payne's profile photo
3 comments
 
Does the first amendment apply outside the home? The 4th, 5th, etc?
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
What the historical evidence says about the Second Amendment and individual rights.
8
1
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
12
1
David Greifzu's profile photo
 
Now thugs won't be able to know if an old lady is packing 
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
The same logic necessarily applies to ammunition.
Constitutional protections afforded by the Second Amendment include the right to buy and sell firearms, a federal appeals court ruled Monday in a decision that reinstates a lawsuit in which three California businessmen challenged zoning laws that limit where gun stores can be located.
13
5
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
Background checks violate the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th Amendments, yet the president has no problem announcing executive orders to expand the system.
16
16
Gordon Gaines's profile photo
 
Good education. 
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
Police in Arizona can no longer frisk anyone who appears to be carrying a gun. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that officers must first establish that a person is engaging in criminal behavior as well as armed and dangerous.

It's what the Fourth Amendment requires: A "search" or a "seizure" (e.g, an arrest) has to be "reasonable." That means searches for the purpose of discovering evidence of a crime can't be justified by the fact the police have no idea whether an activity is criminal. That's not "reasonable." To be "reasonable," there has to already be such evidence. And merely carrying a gun is not evidence of any crime.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that police cannot automatically frisk anyone they suspect has a gun unless "criminal activity is afoot."
11
4
Stephen Nelson's profile photo
 
Hello, felons are not allowed to carry a gun in the first place...
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
"French citizens were sitting ducks last Friday. For at least 10 uninterrupted minutes, terrorists mowed down attendants at Paris' Bataclan Concert Hall. In five other coordinated attacks, terrorists were given far too much time to go about their business.

But European politicians are in denial."
11
4
Fran Mickelson's profile photo
 
How is it that people can look at these same facts and still conclude that we just need to get rid of more guns? I just don't understand.
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
48
22
Nikola Tesla (ES)'s profile photoCharles Schluessler's profile photo
4 comments
 
Free to do what you will as long as it does not infringe on someone else's liberty. Whatever does not break my leg or rob my wallet.
Add a comment...

Alan Lovejoy
owner

Constitutional Law  - 
 
FTA: By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice.

The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states.

My North Carolina concealed carry permit, for example, was recognized yesterday as being valid in 36 states, which just so happened to be the number of states in which gay marriage was legal yesterday. But 14 states did not recognize my concealed carry permit yesterday.

Today they must.

Using the same “due process clause” argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
17
8
David Greifzu's profile photoAlan Lovejoy's profile photo
5 comments
 
+David Greifzu The latter. The legal system makes you litigate each application of the law to a new thing or circumstance all over again.
Add a comment...

2nd Amendment Fight

Constitutional Law  - 
 
9 Things You Didn't Know About The Second Amendment

http://2ndAmendmentFight.com/9-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-second-amendment/
In the 2008 Supreme Court case, D.C. v Heller, the court went into extreme detail with regard to the origin and meaning of every word in the Second Amendment. Here are 9 things you may not know abo...
2
Add a comment...