lichum

BST Users
  • Content count

    68,228
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

About lichum

  • Rank
    Way too many!

Converted

  • About Me:
    I enjoy reading dictionaries.
  • What I do for a living:
    I was a self-taught, self-employed machinist. Now in retirement, I am a social critic.

Profile Fields

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. No right my be exercised absolutely. All rights, including rights incident to ownership or occupation of real property are subject to reasonable regulation to ensure the ordered liberty of civil society. One's right to be free of the variety of ills you posted is secured by the States' exercise of their police power, a power "reserved to the States" under the 10th Amendment's principle of federalism. AMENDMENT X [1791] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the Tenth Amendment (federalism), the States and their political subdivisions (counties, cities, and towns), have the police power, a sweeping power to enact laws, regulations, and ordinances that promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The States' police power, and that of their political subdivisions, is a comprehensive power that authorizes regulation of everything from A to Z, from the sale of alcoholic beverages to the caging of dangerous animals in zoos. Commonwealth v. Alger (1851) The government's power to enact such regulations for the good and welfare of the community as it sees fit, [is] subject to the limitations that the regulation be both reasonable and constitutional. It is much easier to perceive and realize the existence and sources of this power, then to mark its boundaries, or prescribe limits to its exercise. JACOBSON v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS (1905) The authority of the state to enact this statute is to be referred to what is commonly called the police power,—a power which the state did not surrender when becoming a member of the Union under the Constitution. Although this court has refrained from any attempt to define the limits of that power, yet it has distinctly recognized the authority of a state to enact quarantine laws and 'health laws of every description;' indeed, all laws that relate to matters completely within its territory and which do not by their necessary operation affect the people of other states. According to settled principles, the police power of a state must be held to embrace, at least, such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment as will protect the public health and the public safety.
  2. In CA, some were not ordered to close. I'm not sure of how many. I am sure some that were forced to close will reopen. Apparently, DHS understands the dangerous illogic of States' and their political subdivisions' orders to shut down gun stores during a period of extraordinary exigency when ordinary citizens' need for a firearm and ammunition is at its greatest. Common sense informs of the increased possibility that widespread civil unrest is in the offing. At least at DHS reason has prevailed and none too soon. Victory: NJ Gov. Reverses Order to Close Down Gun Stores townhall 2 days ago Reverses Order to Close Down Gun Stores During Wuhan Coronavirus Pandemic ... he is rescinding his order for gun stores to close down and will allow them ... was able to reissue his order for gun shop closures, with Gov.
  3. We are at our best and we do our best work when we exert ourselves in search of the truth. Whether we apprehend truth or not is not relevant to our actually doing our best work; what matters most is our exertion. If we find the truth or the correct answer we ought to disseminate it. I abominate political correctness. Some of its practitioners misunderstand that their silence is virtuous while the opposite is true. Political correctness is an execrable surrender of mind, a noxious perversion of the virtue of truth. Everywhere, it must be resisted and eventually eradicated.
  4. I am aware of the context in which the quote originated. This is no misuse of the quote, he was complaining that the Government (the governor of PA, appointed by the Penns) in refusing to defend the frontier town that were being raided, were trading temporary safety for liberty (the lives of those people in the frontier towns. This situation is the same damned thing, except it a virus that is attacking us. In context for this thread, people are giving up liberty for a temporary extension of the time it takes for them to catch the kung flu. No cure, no vaccine, so we're all going to get it. Hence the temporary nature of the safety. ^ Now I have a much better understanding of context. I am not as fatalistic as you are. 1.Some will not be infected. 2. Some will be infected but not get sick. 3.Some will get moderately sick. 4. Some will get very sick. 5. Some will die. From what I understand the vast majority will be in 1-3. I think Franklin's declaration does not apply in this context so if I met B.F. today and he repeated what he said long ago I would tell him "I disagree." The short answer is that I think what B.F. said then is wrong in this context.
  5. TERMINIELLO v. CITY OF CHICAGO (1949) "The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either." Justice Jackson (dissent)
  6. unalienable rights natural rights inalienable rights human rights universal rights God-given rights negative rights negative liberties All of the above rights are synonymous terms in the context of charters of liberty, including the Constitution of the United States of America, the greatest charter of liberty ever conceived. These rights are inherent which means every human being had them, has them, and will have them as long as humanity exists. These rights are not grantable: Thus they are irrevocable which is another way of saying they are unalienable. These rights' inherency means they are timeless: Their existence has never been, and will never be, dependent on the existence of societies, legislatures, statute books, or courts. The Framers of the Constitution recognized that the panoply of unalienable rights comprises the indispensable elements of human freedom: So informed, the Framers enshrined them in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. The enjoyment of exercise of unalienable rights is only possible if they are recognized, enshrined, and scrupulously upheld. The Constitution, or any other charter of liberty, are only as enduring as the fixity of their guarantees.
  7. In another thread I posted about some States' exercise of their police power to atypically restrict firearms at a time when the need for a firearm is extraordinarily great. These restrictions' manifest illogic could result in lack of a firearm or ammunition when most needed for lawful self-preservation, the paramount natural right. I am unable to quantify previous exertions to counter these restrictions so I cannot confidently conclude that though the liberty of the Second Amendment is always essential, its illogical restriction by some States is attributable to "Those who would give up essential Liberty." It's possible that much resort to constitutional means to prevent or reverse these irrational restrictions was simply unsuccessful. In times of unprecedented exigency such as this pandemic, I do not think complying with recommendations to temporarily shelter in place, or obeying orders to quarantine oneself, amount to giving "up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety." For what is known and unknown as of now, recommendations and orders such as these are essential, and not unreasonable, impermissible abridgments of our freedom of movement.
  8. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (2008) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Heller is the law of the land; it is binding precedent. Governor Murphy's policy preference that "Guns should only be in the hands of trained law enforcement" cannot be reconciled with Heller's core holding that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
  9. In the extraordinarily exigent circumstance of this pandemic there is an increased likelihood of civil unrest from which it follows that a person may need a firearm for lawful self-defense and protection of property. The obviousness of the heightened possibility of a person's need for a firearm underscores the illogic of a governor's order to shut stores that sell firearms, ammunition, and related equipment.
  10. +1 What's not to like about living way out in the sticks?
  11. Pro-gun litigators have to be highly selective when deciding which cases to bring and in which jurisdictions prevailing is likely. Even if a case ought be won on its merits its winnability may be problematic based on the composition of the State Courts, District Courts, and Circuit Courts of Appeals. Did the NRA decide not to litigate in the New Jersey and Pennsylvania cases? If so their decision was prudent: winning either case is unlikely.