Gun registration...yes, the democrats want it, yes, they want to use it to ban and confiscate guns....

[M14 Shooter]

The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution,

Incorrect - at least as far the right mentioned in the bill of rights.
Nothing in the language found therein constitutes a grant of a right.

In specific reference to the right to keep and bear arms:
...The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,

And the right to free speech/lawful assembly:
The particular amendment now under consideration assumes the existence of the right of the people to assemble for lawful purposes, and protects it against encroachment by Congress. The right was not created by the amendment; neither was its continuance guaranteed, except as against congressional interference.

UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL.

www.law.cornell.edu

Protection and enforcement of those rights are often delegated to the States and then delegated in turn to local governments.

This does not change the fact a state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.

 

[alang1216]

Incorrect - at least as far the right mentioned in the bill of rights.
Nothing in the language found therein constitutes a grant of a right.
...
This does not change the fact a state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.

I read it just the opposite. The Court found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone," thus "for their protection in its enjoyment ... the people must look to the States.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I read it just the opposite.

You cannot honestly do so.
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
" The right was not created by the amendment;"
Thus, your claim "The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution", proven false.

A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.

 

[alang1216]

You cannot honestly do so.
"This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
" The right was not created by the amendment;"
Thus, your claim "The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution", proven false.

A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.

I can and do. The amendment may not create the 'right' but it restricts the Feds prohibiting your right to it. So who creates our rights if not our government?

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court[1] ruling that the U.S. Bill of Rights did not limit the power of private actors or state governments.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can and do. The amendment may not create the 'right' but it restricts the Feds prohibiting your right to it.

And thus, you admit, your claim that "The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution" is false.
Thank you.

A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.

 

[Blues Man]

Is that your Constitutional law judgement or has the SCOTUS ruled on it? Everything is constitutional until they say it isn't.

It's the Supreme Court's judgement

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Murdock v. Pennsylvania: It is unconstitutional for a state to tax people selling religious merchandise.

supreme.justia.com

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Cogent argument, I'm convinced.

I'm not trying to convince you. Your opinion is irrelevant. We all must make our choices. Your choice is to give up your rights and liberty with the hope of government saving you. And that's fine if your weak.

 

[alang1216]

And thus, you admit, your claim that "The Federal Government grants Americans their rights in the constitution" is false.
Thank you.

Semantics. The Federal Government recognizes Americans rights in the constitution. A distinction without a difference.

A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.

Don't localities issue permits for marches? An assembly enumerated under the Bill of Rights. Is that legal or not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Semantics.

If by that you mean the federal government indeed does NOT grant your rights to you, contrary to your claim, then sure.
Your concession, accepted.

Don't localities issue permits for marches?

I said:
A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.
The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property - the use of public property is a privilege, not a right.
Feel free to try again.

 

[alang1216]

It's the Supreme Court's judgement

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943)

Murdock v. Pennsylvania: It is unconstitutional for a state to tax people selling religious merchandise.

supreme.justia.com

4. A State may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.

I would advise against reading this ruling too broadly.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I would advise against reading this ruling too broadly.

For no demonstrably factual or rational reason.

 

[alang1216]

If by that you mean the federal government indeed does NOT grant your rights to you, contrary to your claim, then sure.
Your concession, accepted.

Who grants these rights?

I said:
A state does not have standing to grant, must less require, a permit for the basic exercise of a right it did not grant.
The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property.
Feel free to try again.

So the exercise of a right can be restricted if it conflicts with the public welfare?

 

[alang1216]

For no demonstrably factual or rational reason.

Wiki: Murdock does not extend to stand for the broad proposition that a tax can never be imposed upon a missionary and that it necessarily restrains the free exercise of religion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Who grants these rights?

I accepted your concession.
If you want to make the argument that someone or comething grants your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, I suggest you cite the constitution/law which does so and copy/paste the text to that effect.

So the exercise of a right can be restricted if it conflicts with the public welfare?

You do not have the right to use public property,. Apples/oranges.
The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property.
Feel free to try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wiki: Murdock does not extend to stand for the broad proposition that a tax can never be imposed upon a missionary and that it necessarily restrains the free exercise of religion.

Wiki:
"The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution." The state does not have the power to license or tax a right guaranteed to the people.

Religions are not entirely free from facing financial burdens from the government. It is one thing to impose a tax on the income or property of a preacher. It is quite another thing to exact a tax from him for the privilege of delivering a sermon. If the exercise can be taxed, the government is capable of making it prohibitively expensive and could be done only by the wealthy.

The case also established the preferred position doctrine, which states that "[f]reedom of press, freedom of speech, [and] freedom of religion are in a preferred position", indicating that certain fundamental human rights have prerogative.

v Bruen, in elevating the right to keep and bear arms to the same level of all the other enumerated rights, adds the right to keep and bear arms to this list.

 

[2aguy]

I read it just the opposite. The Court found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone," thus "for their protection in its enjoyment ... the people must look to the States.

You would have to cite that, since the Bill of Rights now applies to the States.....

 

[Blues Man]

I would advise against reading this ruling too broadly.

And why would I ever take your advice on anything?

 

[Blues Man]

You would have to cite that, since the Bill of Rights now applies to the States.....

The Constitution applies to all the states and supersedes state laws

 

[alang1216]

I accepted your concession.
If you want to make the argument that someone or comething grants your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights, I suggest you cite the constitution/law which does so and copy/paste the text to that effect.

If you can't answer the question, just say so. No shame in not knowing.

You do not have the right to use public property,. Apples/oranges.
The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property.
Feel free to try again.

As I said before, you don't have the right to have a picnic on you private property and invite 100,000 of your closest friends. At least without a permit.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you can't answer the question, just say so. No shame in not knowing.

As I proved your assertion false, there's no need for me to answer the question.

As I said before, you don't have the right to have a picnic on you private property and invite 100,000 of your closest friends.

Did you just try to move the goalpost? Why yes, yes you did.

You do not have the right to use public property,. Apples/oranges.
The permit you speak of is not for the basic exercise of the right, but for the use of public property.
Your concession, again, accepted.

But, to your point
There;'s no state law or local ordinance that requires me to get a permit to have a picnic on my property, regardless of the number of people I invite. Feel free to prove otherwise.