More evidence why gun ownership should always be legal

SmarterThanYou said:
unconstitutionally.

The right of a citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon in the ordinary course of life and business is a common right which he has under his right to enjoy life and liberty.... It includes the right in so doing to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day; and under existing modes of travel includes the right to drive a horse-drawn carriage or wagon thereon, or to operate an automobile thereon for the usual and ordinary purposes of life and business. It is not a mere privilege, like the privilege of moving a house in the street, operating a business stand in the street, or transporting persons or property for hire along the street, which the city may permit or prohibit at will.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 S.E. 579, 1929
Click to expand...

see the scotus case of hendrick....the state can require a license....i'll try and get it for you
 
Yurt said:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=235&invol=610#622
Click to expand...

note the dates of the cases. thompson v. smith is 14 years after hendrick. Hendrick also dealt with licenses for vehicles involved in interstate commerce.

A reasonable graduated license fee on motor vehicles, when imposed on those engaged in interstate commerce, does not constitute a direct and material burden on such commerce and render the act imposing such fee void under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.
 
belme1201 said:
Do we license drivers?
Click to expand...

Yes we do, but do we raise the prices of those licenses to unreasonable levels to keep people from driving........Mmmmmm....do we...do we...do we? That is what happens with gun licensing in liberal areas. And don't even get me started on the outrageous ammo tax many have proposed.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
note the dates of the cases. thompson v. smith is 14 years after hendrick. Hendrick also dealt with licenses for vehicles involved in interstate commerce.

A reasonable graduated license fee on motor vehicles, when imposed on those engaged in interstate commerce, does not constitute a direct and material burden on such commerce and render the act imposing such fee void under the commerce clause of the federal Constitution.
Click to expand...

thompson doesn't overrule or change hendrick....hendrick is scotus, that district ruling doesn't change the hendrick's ruling that allows states to use their police power to grant licenses in the interest of state safety....or to take away such licenses....i can't recall if that was hendrick or the other driver license case....its been years since i discussed those in school
 
Yurt said:
thompson doesn't overrule or change hendrick....hendrick is scotus, that district ruling doesn't change the hendrick's ruling that allows states to use their police power to grant licenses in the interest of state safety....or to take away such licenses....i can't recall if that was hendrick or the other driver license case....its been years since i discussed those in school
Click to expand...
hendrick dealt specifically with maryland discriminating against out of state commercial drivers. in other words, a state can require a license for drivers participating in interstate commerce. It says nothing about drivers not involved with interstate commerce.
 
Superfreak said:
Is this thread about gun registration or about keeping gun ownership LEGAL???
Click to expand...

Anything concerning the legality of gun ownership usually devolves into a gun registration discussion because the left claims that registration is all they desire (not considering that the extreme left would banish gun ownership in a heartbeat if given a chance) while the extreme right claims that such registration is unconstitional. That's about where we're at in this thread.

You know that this is another soap box issue with me. :)
 
SmarterThanYou said:
hendrick dealt specifically with maryland discriminating against out of state commercial drivers. in other words, a state can require a license for drivers participating in interstate commerce. It says nothing about drivers not involved with interstate commerce.
Click to expand...

from hendrick:

In the absence of national legislation covering the subject, a state may rightfully prescribe uniform regulations necessary for public safety and order in respect to the operation upon its highways of all motor vehicles,-those moving in interstate commerce as well as others. And to this end it may require the registration of such vehicles and the licensing of their drivers, ....
Click to expand...

the attack against the state maintained the staute violated the interstate commerce clause, ICC and EP...the court ruled it did not violate the ICC as it did not place a material burden on ICC....and reality had nothing to do with commerce, rather the state lawfully exercising its police powers to protect its citizens

STY....you can argue your point till you're blue, but you're going to lose due to thompson and if you try to bring a claim against the state for violation of your right to travel....it doesn't preclude your right to travel, you can take the bus, the state has a greater interest in maintaining safety upon the roadways, that is why they can require licensure to operate a motor vehicle

edit:

can you find a case that gives you a right to "operate" a motor vehicle?
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
It's not as if gun ownership is even under assault. I don't know why the NRA folks feel so much need to defend an already well-defended position.
Click to expand...

because if we give you liberal communist assholes an inch you'll take the whole fucking mile and share it with the less fortunate.

all you do is take take take take take
 
Yurt said:
?

what exactly did his admin do to you that made you feel like you needed to take arms up against the government?
Click to expand...
The PATRIOT Act, stripping our 4th Amendment rights, strengthened by this administration rather than changed is enough to begin to at least pay attention. Of course, Desh, being a hack, ignores the abuse by this administration in strengthening warrantless wiretapping and only mentions Bush.
 
Yurt said:
from hendrick:



the attack against the state maintained the staute violated the interstate commerce clause, ICC and EP...the court ruled it did not violate the ICC as it did not place a material burden on ICC....and reality had nothing to do with commerce, rather the state lawfully exercising its police powers to protect its citizens

STY....you can argue your point till you're blue, but you're going to lose due to thompson and if you try to bring a claim against the state for violation of your right to travel....it doesn't preclude your right to travel, you can take the bus, the state has a greater interest in maintaining safety upon the roadways, that is why they can require licensure to operate a motor vehicle
Click to expand...

then it's valid state power to restrict the exercise of rights to a select few methods?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top