This election is far too important.... because the Supreme Court!

[Charlie]

noway2, I agree that citizens should not be restricted to what arms we can own. That is what the 2A is about. It has been infringed, in my opinion unconstitutionally, and some wishing to have greater infringements in the future may seize upon this restriction of the magazines and use it to put more unconstitutional limits on our freedoms and rights. That is the only way I see this ban possibly affecting me somewhere down the road. The gun grabbing maggots like to grasp onto any thin justification they can fabricate.

That lack of restriction does not apply to people who have voluntarily relinquished some of their rights by their actions.

 

[Charlie]

I'd say there is a good case that specifically banning the export of legal gun parts is not constitutional. Same with left handed screw drivers.

There are some other legal gun parts that are not exported. That has been going on for a while. If the government has the constitutional authority to regulate trade, I do not see why regulating trade would be unconstitutional.

 

[SC380]

There are some other legal gun parts that are not exported. That has been going on for a while. If the government has the constitutional authority to regulate trade, I do not see why regulating trade would be unconstitutional.

Does the fact that is has been going on for a while make it constitutional?

If one legal product is allowed to be exported and another legal product is not allowed to be exported, how does the banned product have equal protection under the law and is an arbitrary ban because the state dept doesn't like gun parts "due process?" Trade can not be regulated in conflict with other parts of the constitution...the bill of rights for example.

 

[noway2]

noway2, I agree that citizens should not be restricted to what arms we can own. That is what the 2A is about. It has been infringed, in my opinion unconstitutionally, and some wishing to have greater infringements in the future may seize upon this restriction of the magazines and use it to put more unconstitutional limits on our freedoms and rights. That is the only way I see this ban possibly affecting me somewhere down the road. The gun grabbing maggots like to grasp onto any thin justification they can fabricate.

Agreed, 100%/

That lack of restriction does not apply to people who have voluntarily relinquished some of their rights by their actions.

This is where over time, I have started to evolve my thinking. Considering all of the crap, bogus laws and regulation, and especially "victimless" crime that is only a crime in that the State has declared it so, I am not so sure anymore that I can support the idea of some of these (govt) imposed restrictions. I know it's cliche, but more and more I subscribe to the idea that either your safe enough to be a free citizen or you should not be out in public.

On a note similar to the exports, if you haven't seen it, towards the (current) end of this thread, the topic goes into digital encryption and website security: https://carolinafirearmsforum.com/index.php?threads/ip-address-banned.45540/#post-789978 I mention this because I recall the days (perhaps you do too) where your internet browser was subject to "non export agreement" and you had to pinky swear to not give it to anyone outside of the US because it contained (what at the time was called) "strong" encryption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_the_United_States

 

[Charlie]

You are really stretching things now. Screwdrivers having rights?

 

[SC380]

You are really stretching things now. Screwdrivers having rights?

I don't know who that was directed at but I was referring to the right to trade screwdrivers. If screwdrivers are legal, how/why should congress be able to ban you from engaging in the screwdriver trade?

 

[Charlie]

This is where over time, I have started to evolve my thinking. Considering all of the crap, bogus laws and regulation, and especially "victimless" crime that is only a crime in that the State has declared it so, I am not so sure anymore that I can support the idea of some of these (govt) imposed restrictions. I know it's cliche, but more and more I subscribe to the idea that either your safe enough to be a free citizen or you should not be out in public.

I am a firm believer that most truly victimless crimes should not be crimes. I should be able to own anything I want until I use it to hurt somebody. I should not be prepunished for something I might do with something.

I would agree with the last part about safe enough if there was not a strong history of repeat offenders. A rotating door was mentioned in this thread by someone more familiar with the criminal justice system than I am, and I think that throws a cloud over what I would like to be true. Different crimes and different people deserve different handling, and cases should be examined legally and realistically on an individual basis. I would rather have a former drug user who stole to support a habit living next door to me than a child molester. The former frequently turns over a new leaf and is no longer a threat to society, I have kinfolk who have done that, while the latter rarely, according to what I have read, abandons their old ways and very likely remains a danger after release.

 

[gc70]

If one legal product is allowed to be exported and another legal product is not allowed to be exported, how does the banned product have equal protection under the law and is an arbitrary ban because the state dept doesn't like gun parts "due process?" Trade can not be regulated in conflict with other parts of the constitution...the bill of rights for example.

14th Amendment, Section 1
... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

(I nearly feel bad about post this because I have already drafted my response to the response.)
Yep, due process and equal protection apply to people, not products.

 

[Is this leagal?]

I am a firm believer that most truly victimless crimes should not be crimes. I should be able to own anything I want until I use it to hurt somebody. I should not be prepunished for something I might do with something.

I would agree with the last part about safe enough if there was not a strong history of repeat offenders. A rotating door was mentioned in this thread by someone more familiar with the criminal justice system than I am, and I think that throws a cloud over what I would like to be true. Different crimes and different people deserve different handling, and cases should be examined legally and realistically on an individual basis. I would rather have a former drug user who stole to support a habit living next door to me than a child molester. The former frequently turns over a new leaf and is no longer a threat to society, I have kinfolk who have done that, while the latter rarely, according to what I have read, abandons their old ways and very likely remains a danger after release.

You might find this interesting.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...-control-advocates-on-felon-ban-idUSKBN19H1KZ

 

[noway2]

I would agree with the last part about safe enough if there was not a strong history of repeat offenders. A rotating door was mentioned in this thread by someone more familiar with the criminal justice system than I am, and I think that throws a cloud over what I would like to be true.

I think that this says something that we should all really be paying attention to, but instead treat it like the proverbial elephant in the room. The "justice" system, prison, and jail doesn't work. If you think about it, though, it's really not surprising. Nor is it surprising that what it seems to be is more of a finishing school for violent, criminal, thugs. It's incarceration in an abusive environment. Those that survive it often come out rougher, meaner, and tougher, with "creds". Granted there are plenty of folks in there that shouldn't be out in society and will never be productive members of society, so one has to ask why not execute them instead? I'm talking the murders, rapists, (armed) robbers, etc - those that would qualify for the use of lethal force in self defense. It would be less costly, more humane, and more effective with a zero recidivism rate. For other, lesser crimes their punishment should be a combination of actual reform, which may include learning life and other skills, reparations (requires working), and public work. For others yet, we could go back to public shaming.

 

[gc70]

I think that this says something that we should all really be paying attention to, but instead treat it like the proverbial elephant in the room. The "justice" system, prison, and jail doesn't work. If you think about it, though, it's really not surprising. Nor is it surprising that what it seems to be is more of a finishing school for violent, criminal, thugs. It's incarceration in an abusive environment. Those that survive it often come out rougher, meaner, and tougher, with "creds". Granted there are plenty of folks in there that shouldn't be out in society and will never be productive members of society, so one has to ask why not execute them instead? I'm talking the murders, rapists, (armed) robbers, etc - those that would qualify for the use of lethal force in self defense. It would be less costly, more humane, and more effective with a zero recidivism rate. For other, lesser crimes their punishment should be a combination of actual reform, which may include learning life and other skills, reparations (requires working), and public work. For others yet, we could go back to public shaming.

I think the "justice" system was far better when our country was created than it is today. Back then, when people broke the law they were promptly punished physically, mentally, or financially. If people committed crimes like murder that showed they could not be trusted in society, they were removed from society by banishment or execution. Only in the first half of the 19th century did well-meaning reformers sell the idea that criminals should not be punished, but should be locked away to contemplate their actions until they repented from their evil ways. Now, instead of 10 lashes for a thief, society takes 10 years of their life. The punishments don't fit the crimes and certainly do not rehabilitate the criminals.

 

[SC380]

(I nearly feel bad about post this because I have already drafted my response to the response.)
Yep, due process and equal protection apply to people, not products.

The obvious answer is it takes people to engage in the commerce and export of the products. Nice troll attempt though.

 

[gc70]

The obvious answer is it takes people to engage in the commerce and export of the products. Nice troll attempt though.

Then don't make an obviously incorrect claim that products are entitled to due process or equal protection.

State an argument about people engaging in commerce or exporting products if you can.

 

[railsplitter]

This thread........ lol

 

[Charlie]

well-meaning reformers sell the idea that criminals should not be punished, but should be locked away to contemplate their actions until they repented from their evil ways.

That somewhat reminds me of the situation with Jacob's Syndrome. From what I have read, someone studied males in prison and found that a certain percentage had an extra Y chromosome. They were XYY. That lead to the conclusion that the extra Y chromosome predisposed a person to a life of violence and crime since there were so many in prison. Since the person was not responsible for what he inherited, he should not be held responsible for his vile deeds. Someone else later tested the general population and found about the same percentage of Jacob's Syndrome males among people who have never been to prison, so the extra Y chromosome evidently did not doom a man to a life of crime the way the first researched concluded it did.

edit: There has been a recent study in Europe that concluded that Jacob's Syndrome (XYY) and Klinefelter's Syndrome (XXY) did increase a bit the chance of a person being convicted of certain crimes. That does not mean that the men were helpless to resist criminal activity and should not be punished.

 

[noway2]

There has been a recent study in Europe that concluded that Jacob's Syndrome (XYY) and Klinefelter's Syndrome (XXY) did increase a bit the chance of a person being convicted of certain crimes. That does not mean that the men were helpless to resist criminal activity and should not be punished.

I would be curious if there is a link to their ability, especially as children, to choose delayed gratification for a bigger reward. I’ve heard of studies where they offer kindergarteners one piece of candy now, or two later and there seems to be a connection to those who chose two later doing better overall years later.

 

[Is this leagal?]

I think the "justice" system was far better when our country was created than it is today. Back then, when people broke the law they were promptly punished physically, mentally, or financially. If people committed crimes like murder that showed they could not be trusted in society, they were removed from society by banishment or execution. Only in the first half of the 19th century did well-meaning reformers sell the idea that criminals should not be punished, but should be locked away to contemplate their actions until they repented from their evil ways. Now, instead of 10 lashes for a thief, society takes 10 years of their life. The punishments don't fit the crimes and certainly do not rehabilitate the criminals.

I beg to differ.

 

[B00ger]

Free men don’t beg.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matt.Cross]

Free men don’t beg.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They do if they're married, granted that brings freedom itself into question....

 

[B00ger]

They do if they're married, granted that brings freedom itself into question....

Married...freedom...lolz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Is this leagal?]

Free men don’t beg.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not free!

 

[SC380]

Then don't make an obviously incorrect claim that products are entitled to due process or equal protection.

State an argument about people engaging in commerce or exporting products if you can.

I can and I did actually. For example, The "YOU" in this quote refers to the "people" engaging in the commerce or exporting products:

If screwdrivers are legal, how/why should congress be able to ban you from engaging in the screwdriver trade?

From dictionary.com:

you
[ yoo; unstressed yoo, yuh ]
pronoun, possessive your or yours, objective you, plural you.
1. the pronoun of the second person singular or plural, used of the person or persons being addressed, in the nominative or objective case
2. one; anyone; people in general:

To clarify again, the people trying to export the magazines were engaging in commerce and exporting products...it is their rights we are concerned with. Products aren't sentient and they don't take up occupations or walk themselves to the boat (not yet)...this may not be common knowledge so I understand your confusion.

I commend your effort in googling all night to finally come to the correct conclusion on the international export tax/duty restriction on congress...but I see how the giant huge leap to connect the dot from the product to the person exporting the product might have been a challenge for you in the context of casual conversation if I don't repeat "the people" in each and every post. I apologize for overestimating you and hope this additional info was helpful.

Regarding your hidden text in this post...I am glad you put so much effort into that clever response. Great job! I feel so outsmarted! It's like 5D chess!

 

[gc70]

To clarify again, the people trying to export the magazines were engaging in commerce and exporting products...it is their rights we are concerned with. Products aren't sentient and they don't take up occupations or walk themselves to the boat (not yet)...this may not be common knowledge so I understand your confusion.

If you really meant people exporting products have rights to due process and equal protection, you should have said that instead of "how does the banned product have equal protection under the law" which you originally wrote.

Nevertheless, we can discuss the due process and equal protection rights that people have.

Starting with due process, was there a fair and legal process to prohibit exporting high-capacity magazines? Congress passed a law giving the State Department authority to prohibit the exportation of certain products. Proper legal procedures appear to have been followed in enacting the ban. Nobody has sued the State Department claiming the relevant law does not cover high-capacity magazines, nor has anyone claimed the State Department failed to follow the administrative steps required to legally ban the product. Also, nobody has claimed that the magazine ban was unfairly directed at only one exporter. In short, there is nothing to suggest that people who might want to export high-cap magazines have been denied due process.

Regarding equal protection, you asked "If one legal product is allowed to be exported and another legal product is not allowed to be exported, how does the banned product have equal protection under the law" (although you say you meant to ask how the people exporting those products had equal protection). Equal protection under the law requires that laws must be applied equally and impartially to every person in a particular situation. In the case of people who want to export left-handed screwdrivers, we have to determine whether everyone can do so under a single set of rules and without giving an unfair advantage or impediment to any one exporter or group of exporters. In the case of people who want to export high-capacity magazines, we have to determine whether everyone is prohibited from exporting those particular magazines and no person or group is allowed to export them while others are banned from doing so. Exporters have equal protection if the product they are exporting is treated under the same rules as anyone else exporting that product, although it is obvious that different products (i.e. live animals, explosives, food, medicine, etc.) will often be subject to different sets of rules.

 

[SC380]

If you really meant people exporting products have rights to due process and equal protection, you should have said that instead of "how does the banned product have equal protection under the law" which you originally wrote.

That is a great point! It appears your disingenuous paraphrase of my post left out some key words.

If one legal product is allowed to be exported and another legal product is not allowed to be exported, how does the banned product have equal protection under the law and is an arbitrary ban because the state dept doesn't like gun parts "due process?" Trade can not be regulated in conflict with other parts of the constitution...the bill of rights for example.

You (you the person, one of the people) are good at explaining things. How do products get exported? If a product is banned from export, who is affected?

who
[ hoo ]
pronoun; possessive whose; objective whom.
what person or persons?:Who did it?
(of a person) of what character, origin, position, importance, etc.:Who does she think she is?
the person that or any person that (used relatively to represent a specified or impliedantecedent):It was who you thought.
(used relatively in restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses to represent a specified antecedent,the antecedent being a person or sometimes an animal or personified thing):Any kid who wants to can learn to swim.
Archaic. the person or persons who.

 

[gc70]

That is a great point! It appears your disingenuous paraphrase of my post left out some key words.

So now you want to lead people to believe that I somehow misrepresented what you wrote.

But you did not mention a person or people in your post #243 - not at all.

Spoiler: Post #243

Does the fact that is has been going on for a while make it constitutional?

If one legal product is allowed to be exported and another legal product is not allowed to be exported, how does the banned product have equal protection under the law and is an arbitrary ban because the state dept doesn't like gun parts "due process?" Trade can not be regulated in conflict with other parts of the constitution...the bill of rights for example.

What you wrote about products having equal protection and due process is still in post #243 and is as fundamentally wrong as ever.

 

[SC380]

So now you want to lead people to believe that I somehow misrepresented what you wrote.

You have been misrepresenting me all along, I mentioned that days ago.

Does the fact that is has been going on for a while make it constitutional?

If one legal product is allowed to be exported and another legal product is not allowed to be exported, how does the banned product have equal protection under the law and is an arbitrary ban because the state dept doesn't like gun parts "due process?" Trade can not be regulated in conflict with other parts of the constitution...the bill of rights for example.

Now that we agree on the full quote, like I asked in post #264:

How do products get exported?
If a product is banned from export, who is affected?

But you did not mention a person or people in your post #243 - not at all.

What you wrote about products having equal protection and due process is still in post #243 and is as fundamentally wrong as ever.

The whole conversation has been about people...including the ones exporting the products and being affected by the ban on their products in post #243

There is a willing seller (person), a willing buyer(person), and a government stepping into the middle and arbitrarily saying no.
So your (person) natural right would only allow you to choose from the firearms the government says you(person) can buy...like California?

If Glock(business owned by people) do not want to participate, that is their (people) business. In that case, it isn't my (person)government infringing on my(person) rights or theirs (people).
At this moment, Glock (people) will voluntarily ship any Glock (product) to the US that the ATF will allow. The only thing standing between me (person) and a .380 Glock is the US govt.

Why would our government interfere with the export of legal products with no national security risks and give up the associated tax revenue, jobs (held by people with rights) , and GDP? Global gun control. If they damage a few US based gun businesses (owned by people with rights) in the process, that is fine with them.

the government shouldn't unnecessarily interfere in trade and all people have the same natural/unalienable/endowed by their creator rights. Obviously the Constitution allows the federal government to create a process of naturalization despite the concept of "all men (people) created equal....life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and a means to defend the borders. There is not an amendment that says "the right of everyone (people) in the world to move to America shall not be infringed"

It was not intended to become an activist to subvert the rights of the people or force upon them (people) a subversive globalist agenda that conflicts with their (people) rights (which is tyranny). you advocate intrusive heavy handed governments fighting over every opportunity to grab power and manage the finest details of your (implies people) life.

In addition, you seem to be in denial of the fact that if peoples' rights were recognized in their own countries, you wouldn't have to worry about mass migration. why you would want so bad to keep an american company (owned/operated by people with rights)from making a profit on the export of legitimate products or keep a person in another country from having the means to fight tyranny is beyond me.

If the buyer (person or people) is ok with it, and their country (could be people) is ok with it, and the seller is ok with it...then our government has no business interfering in the commerce of legal products...I am not saying our government can or should be able to force foreign persons to buy our products

it is very clear that the exporters (people) of the magazines are not receiving equal protection under the law.
nowhere did I say anybody (people) had unlimited rights... I specified the natural right (of people)to keep and bear arms (self (person) defense) and commerce (pursuit of life and liberty) or in constitutional terms via the 5th amendment....

I surrender now. Good talk!