Chicago Police violated Iowa man 14th amendment right

[BULLDOG]

Which states do you think a sniper's nest, complete with weapons and ammo, are legal in?

All of them ...

View attachment 511005

I guess you got me there, but it's doubtful that he would have seen many deer on that crowded beach. Did he show his hunting license, and prove he had permission to hunt from the land owner?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, you are all for the punishment of a possible crime committed sometime in the future. Got it.

This is a lie and strawman fallacy.

 

[Darkwind]

BULLDOG

Care to show us where in the Constitution that the government, any government, can take your rights away based upon a threat of future crimes?

Most of our laws are not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but they must be constitutionally allowed. You won't find speed limits specifically mentioned in the constitution either, but they are constitutionally allowed. Every state has laws allowing arrest for credible threats. His snipers nest was considered a credible threat.

poor example. Try again. Driving and speed limits are NOT Natural Rights.

 

[Darkwind]

The 14th amendment makes sure states cannot create unequal laws that all U.S Citizens enjoy. What is legal in one state when it's a protected right in the U.S Constitution must be legal in all 50 states or those laws are not equal laws and infringe on the rights of certain citizens

Keegan Casteel, Iowa Man Arrested After Bringing Rifle With Scope And Laser Sight To Lakefront Hotel, To Be Released After Posting Bail

A rifle with a high-powered scope and laser sight was found in Casteel's hotel room on the 12th floor, overlooking the crowded Ohio Street Beach.

chicago.cbslocal.com

Are you out of your ******* mind?
I am as conservative as it comes, and I fully support the right to own guns. I have several.
But I am am not an imbecile.
I do not support the "right" to set up a snipers nest in a hotel room above a crowded beach.
Are you on drugs? He had 5 fully loaded magazines sitting in the window sill, with the rifle set up by the window.
There is no planet where that is ok.

So, you are all for the punishment of a possible crime committed sometime in the future. Got it.

If that means confiscating a rifle with 5 fully loaded magazines in a window above a crowded beach by a man with OBVIOUS mental issues.
Then absolutely.
There is no law that exist anywhere that is totally black or white.
You have to use common sense.

Common sense is that you ask what he intends, and when he lies about it, if he lies about it, you then evict him from the room. YOU DO NOT VIOLATE his rights by arresting him for not committing a crime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

seems you are out of your ******* wacko leftist were you there? Some weak-kneed antigun leftists at a motel saw a gun and got wet weak-kneed

This is a lie.

There is no evidence anyone is a ‘leftist’ or ‘anti-gun.’

Private property owners are at liberty to prohibit patrons from bringing firearms on their property.

The Second Amendment applies solely to the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons or private entities, such as hotels and motels.

 

[Darkwind]

The 14th amendment makes sure states cannot create unequal laws that all U.S Citizens enjoy. What is legal in one state when it's a protected right in the U.S Constitution must be legal in all 50 states or those laws are not equal laws and infringe on the rights of certain citizens

Keegan Casteel, Iowa Man Arrested After Bringing Rifle With Scope And Laser Sight To Lakefront Hotel, To Be Released After Posting Bail

A rifle with a high-powered scope and laser sight was found in Casteel's hotel room on the 12th floor, overlooking the crowded Ohio Street Beach.

chicago.cbslocal.com

Wrong.

There are no civil rights ‘violations’ here – 14th Amendment or otherwise.

From your own linked article:

“Prosecutors said Casteel admitted owning the guns, but he does not have a Firearm Owners Identification card, which is required to legally possess a gun in Illinois.”

The requirement of a license or permit to possess a firearm is perfectly lawful and Constitutional, in no manner in ‘violation’ of the Second Amendment.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t require all state laws to be ‘equal’ or ‘the same,’ it requires the states and local jurisdictions to afford all persons residing in the states equal protection of state laws and due process of the law.

An example of a 14th Amendment violation would be if the state refused to allow someone to apply for a FOID because of his race, religion, or national origin.

But that’s not the case here – Casteel wasn’t denied a FOID because of who he is, he was lawfully arrested because he didn’t have the document at all.

So, it must also be perfectly legal and Constitutional to require a license to vote in Illinois. When we start requiring the licensing of a right, it becomes a privilege, not a right.

No, as not everyone can qualify for a license. Now if you mean an I.D.. that is already gave to you when you register.

If you must apply for a specific license to own a firearm, then the same standard can be applied to voting.

Both are rights as defined by the Constitution and its Amendments.

and I've argued a license is a violation of your second amendment rights. The Constitution allows each person the right to one vote. Registering only makes sure they vote once. You do not have to get permission to vote. There are no such requirements in owning a weapon so there are no valid reasons to force people to get an OK from the state. It goes against the very idea they 2nd was created to start with.

The founders understood the idea of the people being armed allowed them equal power over the government but if the government has a list of gun owners that waters it down.

And the argument is always, "you do not need permission to own a gun". If you mandate having permission, it is not a right but a privledge.

 

[Darkwind]

Care to show us where in the Constitution that the government, any government, can take your rights away based upon a threat of future crimes?

This is a lie – that’s not what happened.

No rights were ‘taken away’; indeed, rights cannot be ‘taken away.’

And yet again – Casteel was arrested for being in violation of the state’s firearm law.

Had Casteel possessed a FOID, there’d be no arrest.

He might have been trespassed from the hotel, but nothing more.

Casteel has only himself to blame.

This is a lie. It must first be determined that the law does not violate Constitutional Protections. No need ever to explain the exercise of a right.

The ONLY thing that can be done is the person be asked to leave private property.

 

[BULLDOG]

BULLDOG

Care to show us where in the Constitution that the government, any government, can take your rights away based upon a threat of future crimes?

Most of our laws are not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but they must be constitutionally allowed. You won't find speed limits specifically mentioned in the constitution either, but they are constitutionally allowed. Every state has laws allowing arrest for credible threats. His snipers nest was considered a credible threat.

poor example. Try again. Driving and speed limits are NOT Natural Rights.

No. Like I said before, this is an absurd thread with absurd claims, and is worthy of nothing more than a simple " you're nuts"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here's what I see happened
He had his rifle in a tactical case and the maid saw it and got wet. You're out of your mind if you believe that shit he left his room with a firearm out in the open when things are easily stolen in a motel room.

What you ‘see happened’ is wrong and idiotic.

What happened is this moron was in unlawful possession of firearms and was appropriately arrested.

Now, you might believe the state’s firearm laws are ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or ‘ineffective’ – but that doesn’t make them un-Constitutional or unenforceable.

 

[Darkwind]

BULLDOG

Care to show us where in the Constitution that the government, any government, can take your rights away based upon a threat of future crimes?

Most of our laws are not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but they must be constitutionally allowed. You won't find speed limits specifically mentioned in the constitution either, but they are constitutionally allowed. Every state has laws allowing arrest for credible threats. His snipers nest was considered a credible threat.

poor example. Try again. Driving and speed limits are NOT Natural Rights.

No. Like I said before, this is an absurd thread with absurd claims, and is worthy of nothing more than a simple " you're nuts"

I disagree. Any and ALL attempts at restriction firearms, regardless of the argument, will be resisted and stopped.

The only absurdity that can be found in any gun restriction argument is that people make them at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

and I've argued a license is a violation of your second amendment rights.

And you’re at liberty to make that argument – provided you understand it’s completely devoid of legal merit until the Supreme Court agrees with you.

 

[BULLDOG]

BULLDOG

Care to show us where in the Constitution that the government, any government, can take your rights away based upon a threat of future crimes?

Most of our laws are not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but they must be constitutionally allowed. You won't find speed limits specifically mentioned in the constitution either, but they are constitutionally allowed. Every state has laws allowing arrest for credible threats. His snipers nest was considered a credible threat.

poor example. Try again. Driving and speed limits are NOT Natural Rights.

No. Like I said before, this is an absurd thread with absurd claims, and is worthy of nothing more than a simple " you're nuts"

I disagree. Any and ALL attempts at restriction firearms, regardless of the argument, will be resisted and stopped.

The only absurdity that can be found in any gun restriction argument is that people make them at all.

Your gun nutbaggery is duly noted.

 

[pknopp]

and I've argued a license is a violation of your second amendment rights.

And you’re at liberty to make that argument – provided you understand it’s completely devoid of legal merit until the Supreme Court agrees with you.

The wording of the Constitution is the law until the Supreme Court says otherwise or it's changed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The founders understood the idea of the people being armed allowed them equal power over the government

Wrong.

The Founders ‘understood’ no such thing.

There is nothing in the history, text, or Second Amendment case law that supports the notion of insurrectionist dogma or the Second Amendment right guarding against ‘tyranny.’

The Heller Court codified the Second Amendment right as an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘opposing tyranny.’

It’s also a right that’s not ‘unlimited,’ subject to regulations and restrictions, such as requiring a license to possess a firearm.

 

[pknopp]

The founders understood the idea of the people being armed allowed them equal power over the government

Wrong.

The Founders ‘understood’ no such thing.

There is nothing in the history, text, or Second Amendment case law that supports the notion of insurrectionist dogma or the Second Amendment right guarding against ‘tyranny.’

The Heller Court codified the Second Amendment right as an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘opposing tyranny.’

It’s also a right that’s not ‘unlimited,’ subject to regulations and restrictions, such as requiring a license to possess a firearm.

They wrote the text. If they expected people to inform the government that they were armed they would have said so.

 

[August West]

The founders understood the idea of the people being armed allowed them equal power over the government

Wrong.

The Founders ‘understood’ no such thing.

There is nothing in the history, text, or Second Amendment case law that supports the notion of insurrectionist dogma or the Second Amendment right guarding against ‘tyranny.’

The Heller Court codified the Second Amendment right as an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘opposing tyranny.’

It’s also a right that’s not ‘unlimited,’ subject to regulations and restrictions, such as requiring a license to possess a firearm.

I`m surprised that pk bought into that NRA nonsense that we have guns to shoot our elected officials when we think they`re being tyrannical. Our Founders believed in voting, but only for white males.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No. Like I said before, this is an absurd thread with absurd claims, and is worthy of nothing more than a simple " you're nuts"

It’s also yet another thread where the OP exhibits his comprehensive ignorance of the law.

 

[pknopp]

The founders understood the idea of the people being armed allowed them equal power over the government

Wrong.

The Founders ‘understood’ no such thing.

There is nothing in the history, text, or Second Amendment case law that supports the notion of insurrectionist dogma or the Second Amendment right guarding against ‘tyranny.’

The Heller Court codified the Second Amendment right as an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful self-defense, unconnected with militia service, having nothing to do with ‘opposing tyranny.’

It’s also a right that’s not ‘unlimited,’ subject to regulations and restrictions, such as requiring a license to possess a firearm.

I`m surprised that pk bought into that NRA nonsense that we have guns to shoot our elected officials when we think they`re being tyrannical. Our Founders believed in voting, but only for white males.

The Founders clearly believed in arms. Were you not taught about the Revolutionary War? It's a fairly important event in the history of the country. I'm surprised you are unaware of it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I`m surprised that pk bought into that NRA nonsense that we have guns to shoot our elected officials when we think they`re being tyrannical. Our Founders believed in voting, but only for white males.

He buys into the nonsense that is Constitutional ‘absolutism’ – that any and all laws regulating firearms are ‘invalid’ although the Supreme Court has never ruled as to their constitutionality.

It also illustrates the meritless idiocy that is insurrectionist dogma – that citizens can ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government they incorrectly and subjectively perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There is no legal standard as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’; the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment – it doesn’t take from the people their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process, which is exactly what an unwarranted and illegal armed insurrection would do.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

 

[pknopp]

I`m surprised that pk bought into that NRA nonsense that we have guns to shoot our elected officials when we think they`re being tyrannical. Our Founders believed in voting, but only for white males.

He buys into the nonsense that is Constitutional ‘absolutism’ – that any and all laws regulating firearms are ‘invalid’ although the Supreme Court has never ruled as to their constitutionality.

It also illustrates the meritless idiocy that is insurrectionist dogma – that citizens can ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government they incorrectly and subjectively perceive to have become ‘tyrannical.’

There is no legal standard as to what constitutes ‘tyranny’; the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment – it doesn’t take from the people their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process, which is exactly what an unwarranted and illegal armed insurrection would do.

The Framers did not amend the Constitution to authorize the destruction of the Republic they had just created.

If you are talking about me, why not address me directly?

And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.