Jump to content


Photo

2nd Amendment Rights of the Homeless


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
27 replies to this topic

#1 blueliner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11

Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:32 PM

Maybe this has been covered before, I don't know. I was watching "60 Minutes" tonight and the story was about families left homeless due to the current recession. One of the parts of the story concerned the fears they had about their safety. These were not the homeless you find on lower Wacker dr. in Chicago with mental problems, these were whole families living in their cars or shelters because they lost their jobs and then their homes. Tragic stories for sure, but one of their concerns were for their safety and how they had to keep watch at night so as not to be raped, robbed or murdered.

Here was my thought. The anti-gunners want to say that the "Heller" and "McDonald" decisions restrict our rights to self-defense to our homes only, and not out in public. However, what about the homeless and their rights to self defense? Can the argument be made that our 2A rights to self defense cannot be limited to our homes only, because that would then deny the right of self defense to the homeless? Could a court case be launched that says the Illinois prohibition on both open carry and concealed carry denies the homeless their rights to self defense as defined in the "Heller" and "McDonald" decisions merely because they do not have a fixed home?
Scott

U.S. Army Veteran
Member, NRA and ISRA
Certified NRA Pistol Instructor and Range Safety Officer
Certified Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor

#2 kermit315

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 336 posts
  • Joined: 11-November 09

Posted 27 November 2011 - 09:35 PM

Its been brought up on the boards before, I think it is in the pipeline of stuff. From what I have gleaned from various different boards, there is a specific order of operations that they are using to push the lawsuits for maximum effectiveness.
Posted Image

#3 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 22 December 2011 - 11:24 PM

Maybe this has been covered before, I don't know. I was watching "60 Minutes" tonight and the story was about families left homeless due to the current recession. One of the parts of the story concerned the fears they had about their safety. These were not the homeless you find on lower Wacker dr. in Chicago with mental problems, these were whole families living in their cars or shelters because they lost their jobs and then their homes. Tragic stories for sure, but one of their concerns were for their safety and how they had to keep watch at night so as not to be raped, robbed or murdered.

Here was my thought. The anti-gunners want to say that the "Heller" and "McDonald" decisions restrict our rights to self-defense to our homes only, and not out in public. However, what about the homeless and their rights to self defense? Can the argument be made that our 2A rights to self defense cannot be limited to our homes only, because that would then deny the right of self defense to the homeless? Could a court case be launched that says the Illinois prohibition on both open carry and concealed carry denies the homeless their rights to self defense as defined in the "Heller" and "McDonald" decisions merely because they do not have a fixed home?



Great concept blueliner....... Where is your home? Is it in a tent or in a car? Are you a nomad wandering from place to place across the country? Regards, Dan
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#4 vezpa

    Illinoiscarry.com Funnyman

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,771 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 10 January 2012 - 10:44 PM

Along those same lines a lot can be said about a vehicle and it being a place of work and you should be able to carry there.

I wish HB148 contained words that made your vehicle an extension of your home and you didn't need a permit to have it there. Florida has those words in their Castle Doctrine.
Stand Your Ground

#5 Black Flag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 05

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:08 AM

I wish HB148 contained words that made your vehicle an extension of your home and you didn't need a permit to have it there. Florida has those words in their Castle Doctrine.

Cart Doctrine?

Posted Image


#6 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,971 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 11 January 2012 - 08:32 AM

Blueliner,

Interesting point. Of course, Illinois government doesn't actually care about the Constitution. Hopefully the courts will.


I wish HB148 contained words that made your vehicle an extension of your home and you didn't need a permit to have it there. Florida has those words in their Castle Doctrine.


I agree. But, I just want HB148 to pass first... I wish Illinois had a lot of things, and Castle Doctrine (at all) is one of them. Currently we have "duty to retreat" which makes no sense, but is the law. But I am willing to take a "wait" attitude on many things if we can just get some form of conceal carry, even if it's far from perfect in the first implementation.
NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
CCW Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)

#7 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,279 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:10 AM

I agree. But, I just want HB148 to pass first... I wish Illinois had a lot of things, and Castle Doctrine (at all) is one of them. Currently we have "duty to retreat" which makes no sense, but is the law. But I am willing to take a "wait" attitude on many things if we can just get some form of conceal carry, even if it's far from perfect in the first implementation.


I think you might be surprised by Illinois' Justifiable Use of Force laws. It is still an affirmative defense, but it is better than average.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#8 TyGuy

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 10,609 posts
  • Joined: 10-November 09

Posted 11 January 2012 - 09:56 AM

If home is where your heart is then shouldn't they be allowed a shoulder holster for CCW?

Edited by TyGuy, 11 January 2012 - 09:56 AM.

ILSP Approved CCW Instructor
NRA Endowment Member
ISRA Member
GOA Member

Buy my stuff!

My favorite post ----- Walmart Thread ----- Ammo Alert Thread ---- Daily Deals Thread


#9 RandyP

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 11 January 2012 - 10:35 AM

Like everything, the devil is in the details. There are homeless and there are homeless. Many may be exeriencing a unique and sudden loss of their mortgaged home or rented apartment for financial reasons, many more are mentally disturbed or addicted souls who have made 'homelessness' their lifestyle of choice or mental imbalance.

Should we then have yet another government agency boondoggle that will rule on which side a specific 'homeless' applicant falls who wants to keep guns in their temporary abode?

#10 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,971 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 11 January 2012 - 12:02 PM

I think you might be surprised by Illinois' Justifiable Use of Force laws. It is still an affirmative defense, but it is better than average.


You're right. And I finally tracked down the court case most sited in this affirmative defense: People v. Bush (IL Supreme Court, 1953) http://www.leagle.co...LWAR1-1950-1985
NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
CCW Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)

#11 blueliner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:19 PM

Like everything, the devil is in the details. There are homeless and there are homeless. Many may be exeriencing a unique and sudden loss of their mortgaged home or rented apartment for financial reasons, many more are mentally disturbed or addicted souls who have made 'homelessness' their lifestyle of choice or mental imbalance.

Should we then have yet another government agency boondoggle that will rule on which side a specific 'homeless' applicant falls who wants to keep guns in their temporary abode?


I think you are missing the point. Regardless of whether someone is homeless or not, they still fall under the same federal and state laws pertaining to who can or cannot purchase and possess a firearm. My point is, if the courts were to say that the 2A only gives the right of self-defense in ones home, why can't we find a sympathic plantiff that is homeless, but meets all the criterea for firearms possesion and file a lawsuit.

If the right of self defense is, as Justice Scalia said in the Heller decision, a natural right, how can that right be limited to just a physical home? If our Bill of Rights are to protect everyone equally, then you cannot limit the right of self defense to a physical home when we have so many homeless in this country, especially now with the economy. A lawsuit from a sympathic homeless person that says any law that keeps them from carrying a gun for self defense because they do not have a physical home would be a violation of their 2A rights to self defense. I don't mean to creat a seperate class of people for the purpose of firearm ownership, just use their lack of a physical home to extend 2A rights outside the physical home and business which is all we have in Illinois now.
Scott

U.S. Army Veteran
Member, NRA and ISRA
Certified NRA Pistol Instructor and Range Safety Officer
Certified Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor

#12 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:41 PM

Just to add a little clarification or, some might say, 'mudification,' to this issue let me play with the Illinois Constitution to give an idea just how ignorant it is. In Article 1, the Illinois Bill of Rights, Section 22 the traitors who wrote this section place the phrase, "Subject to the police power," in front of the described right. I have taken the liberty to rewrite the first seven sections of enumerated rights and prefaced each one with this phrase. For your info I have listed Section 22 first. This could be done for all 24 sections. Notice how out of place this is... Let it soak in. Regards, Dr. Dan

Article 1, Section 22. Subject to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

now let me rewrite some of the rest...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS
Subject to the police power, all men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable
rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these
rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
Subject to the police power, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Subject to the police power, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination, shall forever be guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or
political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty
of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations,
excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or
safety of the State. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place
of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious
denomination or mode of worship.


ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4. Freedom of Speech
Subject to the police power,
All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being responsible for the abuse
of that liberty. In trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a sufficient defense.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5. Right to Assemble and Petition
Subject to the police power, the people have the right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the
common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives and to apply for
redress of grievances.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 6. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, PRIVACY AND INTERCEPTIONS
Subject to the police power, the people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or
interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means. No warrant
shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 7. INDICTMENT AND PRELIMINARY HEARING
Subject to the police power, no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense unless on indictment
of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or by imprisonment
other than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the militia
when in actual service in time of war or public danger. The General Assembly by law
may abolish the grand jury or further limit its use.
Subject to the police power, no person shall be held to answer for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment
in the penitentiary unless either the initial charge has been brought by indictment
of a grand jury or the person has been given a prompt preliminary hearing to establish
probable cause.

Edited by dmefford, 13 January 2012 - 04:54 AM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#13 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,279 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:51 PM

Just to add a little clarification or, some might say, 'mudification,' to this issue let me play with the Illinois Constitution to give an idea just how ignorant it is. In Article 1, the Illinois Bill of Rights, Section 22 the traitors who wrote this section place the phrase, "Subject to the police power," in front of the described right. I have taken the liberty to rewrite the first seven sections of enumerated rights and predicated each one with this phrase. For your info I have listed Section 22 first. This could be done for all 24 sections. Notice how out of place this is... Let it soak in. Regards, Dr. Dan

Article 1, Section 22. Subject to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

now let me rewrite some of the rest...

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 1. INHERENT AND INALIENABLE RIGHTS
Subject to the police power, all men are by nature free and independent and have certain inherent and inalienable
rights among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To secure these
rights and the protection of property, governments are instituted among men, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 2. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION
Subject to the police power, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law nor be denied the equal protection of the laws.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 3. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
Subject to the police power, the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination, shall forever be guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or
political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty
of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations,
excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or
safety of the State. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place
of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious
denomination or mode of worship.


ARTICLE 1, SECTION 4. Freedom of Speech
Subject to the police power,
All persons may speak, write and publish freely, being responsible for the abuse
of that liberty. In trials for libel, both civil and criminal, the truth, when published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, shall be a sufficient defense.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 5. Right to Assemble and Petition
Subject to the police power, the people have the right to assemble in a peaceable manner, to consult for the
common good, to make known their opinions to their representatives and to apply for
redress of grievances.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 6. SEARCHES, SEIZURES, PRIVACY AND INTERCEPTIONS
Subject to the police power, the people shall have the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers
and other possessions against unreasonable searches, seizures, invasions of privacy or
interceptions of communications by eavesdropping devices or other means. No warrant
shall issue without probable cause, supported by affidavit particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 7. INDICTMENT AND PRELIMINARY HEARING
Subject to the police power, no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense unless on indictment
of a grand jury, except in cases in which the punishment is by fine or by imprisonment
other than in the penitentiary, in cases of impeachment, and in cases arising in the militia
when in actual service in time of war or public danger. The General Assembly by law
may abolish the grand jury or further limit its use.
Subject to the police power, no person shall be held to answer for a crime punishable by death or by imprisonment
in the penitentiary unless either the initial charge has been brought by indictment
of a grand jury or the person has been given a prompt preliminary hearing to establish
probable cause.


The "Subject to the Police Power" preface in Section 22 is meaningless. It is like saying "Given that the Sun rises in the East...". All rights are subject to the police power, even the First Amendment. Regulations requiring permits for assembly and parade have long been upheld, for instances.

The question is not whether or not Section 22 is subject to the Police Power (it is, by Heller/McDonald), but which police powers are allowed and which are not.

Efforts to erase "Subject to the Police Power" are, therefore, symbolic and a distraction. Amend the IL Constitution tomorrow and you won't change a thing regarding the current infringements we suffer.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#14 RandyP

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,077 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 07

Posted 11 January 2012 - 01:55 PM

I understand the point - and if anyone out there wants to pony up the dough to hire a lawyer and find a sympathetic Chicago stew-bum in their cardboard box who still wants to protect it with a firearm to sue the world at large and all local governments in specific? Go for it and keep as posted as the case meanders through the court system till your money runs out and you end up out on those same streets.

If however you are passing a tin cup for contributions in your quest to tilt against that particular windmill? It may not fill as fast as you might think.

Edited by RandyP, 11 January 2012 - 01:57 PM.


#15 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:03 PM

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. As you know "Subject to the police power," refers to the power of the legislature to enact law. In this case, the only case out of 24 Sections in our "Bill of Rights," do the authors insert this particular phrase. Then after this 1970 Constitution is passed all the gun legislation such as the FOID and other travesties are passed........

Unlike the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a a free state," the phrase, "Subject to the police power," carries some weight. At least that is the way it appears to me...

Regards, Dr. Dan
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#16 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,279 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:11 PM

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. As you know "Subject to the police power," refers to the power of the legislature to enact law. In this case, the only case out of 24 Sections in our "Bill of Rights," do the authors insert this particular phrase. Then after this 1970 Constitution is passed all the gun legislation such as the FOID and other travesties are passed........

Unlike the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a a free state," the phrase, "Subject to the police power," carries some weight. At least that is the way it appears to me...

Regards, Dr. Dan


But you claim that the other sections not having that preface somehow makes them different from Section 22. In that case, show me any one of those sections being immune from state laws. That means they are subject to the police powers, otherwise those laws could be struck down.

In fact, all states have are police powers, the power to regulate activity within the state. Any other power is either a function of the Federal Government (such as treaties with foreign powers, etc) and rights retained by the people.

Long-standing US Supreme Court precedent allows time-place-manner restrictions on even the most fundamental rights of the people (even the right to lift itself, else we couldn't have executed John Wayne Gacy). The Supremecy Clause of the US Constitution makes those precedents binding on the states.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#17 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:43 PM

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. As you know "Subject to the police power," refers to the power of the legislature to enact law. In this case, the only case out of 24 Sections in our "Bill of Rights," do the authors insert this particular phrase. Then after this 1970 Constitution is passed all the gun legislation such as the FOID and other travesties are passed........

Unlike the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a a free state," the phrase, "Subject to the police power," carries some weight. At least that is the way it appears to me...

Regards, Dr. Dan
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#18 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 11 January 2012 - 02:56 PM

But you claim that the other sections not having that preface somehow makes them different from Section 22. In that case, show me any one of those sections being immune from state laws. That means they are subject to the police powers, otherwise those laws could be struck down.

In fact, all states have are police powers, the power to regulate activity within the state. Any other power is either a function of the Federal Government (such as treaties with foreign powers, etc) and rights retained by the people.

Long-standing US Supreme Court precedent allows time-place-manner restrictions on even the most fundamental rights of the people (even the right to lift itself, else we couldn't have executed John Wayne Gacy). The Supremecy Clause of the US Constitution makes those precedents binding on the states.


Sorry I did not have time to fully give a response to your reply...

Actually with reference to the bill of rights there is very little that the legislature can do, at least with regard to the exercise of the right... IOWs the legislature may pass a bill that you cannot yell fire in a crowded auditorium when there is no fire... it cannot pass bill to say that you have to get a permit to speak. The same is true with all the other enumerated rights, eg, free assembly, free exercise of religion etc....

The issue is natural right is inalienable and requires no permission from government to exercise. The expression of a natural right can only be regulated at the point it interferes with another's right to enjoyment of their rights.

Articles 2 on will be the Articles which generally fall under the "Police Powers" of the state, it would appear to me.

Regards, Dr. Dan

Edited by dmefford, 11 January 2012 - 03:06 PM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#19 blueliner

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 166 posts
  • Joined: 30-May 11

Posted 11 January 2012 - 03:03 PM

I understand the point - and if anyone out there wants to pony up the dough to hire a lawyer and find a sympathetic Chicago stew-bum in their cardboard box who still wants to protect it with a firearm to sue the world at large and all local governments in specific? Go for it and keep as posted as the case meanders through the court system till your money runs out and you end up out on those same streets.

If however you are passing a tin cup for contributions in your quest to tilt against that particular windmill? It may not fill as fast as you might think.


Read my OP. I'm not talking about the mentally ill homeless that live in boxes under lower wacker dr in chicago. The 60 minutes story is about normal working people, law abiding citizens, who have been made homeless by the current housing collapse and recession. These people live out of box vans and cars or in temporary shelters because they have lost their homes. They're not mentally ill or criminals living in a box. In the story, they expressed concerns about their security and needing to stand guard at night so as not to be raped or killed by criminals. Here is where your sympathetic plantiff is found.

This is a potential legal sttrategy for when the antis say the Heller and McDonald decisions should be limited to the home only. It's a legal strategy. The NRA and the SAF are good at finding plantiffs for stuff like this.

Edited by blueliner, 11 January 2012 - 03:06 PM.

Scott

U.S. Army Veteran
Member, NRA and ISRA
Certified NRA Pistol Instructor and Range Safety Officer
Certified Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor

#20 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,279 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 11 January 2012 - 04:01 PM

But you claim that the other sections not having that preface somehow makes them different from Section 22. In that case, show me any one of those sections being immune from state laws. That means they are subject to the police powers, otherwise those laws could be struck down.

In fact, all states have are police powers, the power to regulate activity within the state. Any other power is either a function of the Federal Government (such as treaties with foreign powers, etc) and rights retained by the people.

Long-standing US Supreme Court precedent allows time-place-manner restrictions on even the most fundamental rights of the people (even the right to lift itself, else we couldn't have executed John Wayne Gacy). The Supremecy Clause of the US Constitution makes those precedents binding on the states.


Sorry I did not have time to fully give a response to your reply...

Actually with reference to the bill of rights there is very little that the legislature can do, at least with regard to the exercise of the right... IOWs the legislature may pass a bill that you cannot yell fire in a crowded auditorium when there is no fire... it cannot pass bill to say that you have to get a permit to speak. The same is true with all the other enumerated rights, eg, free assembly, free exercise of religion etc....

The issue is natural right is inalienable and requires no permission from government to exercise. The expression of a natural right can only be regulated at the point it interferes with another's right to enjoyment of their rights.

Articles 2 on will be the Articles which generally fall under the "Police Powers" of the state, it would appear to me.

Regards, Dr. Dan


There are reams of regulations on all of those rights and case law upholding those regulations. Regulations are the expression of police power. License and permit requirements abound regarding exercise of free speech, assembly, and religion. Exceptions for violation all of our enumerated rights are allowed as well.

All of that is expression of police power and none of them rely upon having a "Subject to the Police Power" preface signaling the ability of the state that it can infringe.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#21 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 11 January 2012 - 06:59 PM

There are reams of regulations on all of those rights and case law upholding those regulations. Regulations are the expression of police power. License and permit requirements abound regarding exercise of free speech, assembly, and religion. Exceptions for violation all of our enumerated rights are allowed as well.

All of that is expression of police power and none of them rely upon having a "Subject to the Police Power" preface signaling the ability of the state that it can infringe.


Just wondering if you could just name a few so I can see a small sampling of what you mean...

Thanks, Dr. Dan

Edited by dmefford, 12 January 2012 - 11:13 AM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#22 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:45 AM



There are reams of regulations on all of those rights and case law upholding those regulations. Regulations are the expression of police power. License and permit requirements abound regarding exercise of free speech, assembly, and religion. Exceptions for violation all of our enumerated rights are allowed as well.

All of that is expression of police power and none of them rely upon having a "Subject to the Police Power" preface signaling the ability of the state that it can infringe.


Just wondering if you could just name a few so I can see a small sampling of what you mean...

Thanks, Dr. Dan


I will place here what I have been able to find on a very basic and fundamental right that no one really argues about.... Here is the Illinois holdings to this point in current history.

Section 4. Free speech and publication
This guarantee is based on guarantees in earlier Illinois Constitutions and gives protections
similar to the free speech and press portions of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment,
which apply to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.25 It applies only against
government restriction of expression, not against restriction by private entities such as proprietors
of shopping places;26 owners of trailer parks;27 or employers.28
Government is allowed to restrict expression by prohibiting misleading professional
advertising,29 limiting political activities by public employees,30 and prohibiting political
contributions by liquor licensees and their officers and employees.31 However, the principle
that laws must contain standards to guide citizens in complying with them has special force
regarding measures that restrict expression.32 There is a heavy burden on those who would
impose "prior restraint" on expression (prohibiting it before it occurs); government ordinarily
may not impose such restraint, even on offensive expression such as the marching of Nazis
with swastikas.33
A government body may not impose disciplinary measures on one of its employees
for comments on public matters that are not shown to be false and to impair the effectiveness
of the employee or the agency, at public meetings,34 in public gatherings,35 in a letter to members
of a city council,36 or in comments to the press.37 But the suspension of a policeman for
disclosing information from a police personnel file has been upheld.38
6 ♦ Article 1 Bill of Rights Defamation
The second sentence of this section, dealing with libel, is a somewhat outdated carryover
from the 1870 Constitution. A series of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court beginning
with New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)39 have held that the U.S. Constitution's First
Amendment requires public figures who sue for libel to demonstrate that the statements were
false and made with either (1) knowledge of their falsity or (2) reckless disregard for whether
they were true or false. The Illinois Supreme Court has held similarly as to public figures
and persons involved in a matter of legitimate public interest, such as medical quackery40 or
tenure decisions at a public university.41 Even as to private figures, the U.S. Supreme Court
has held that the burden of showing falsity of defamatory statements on matters of public
concern must be on the person defamed.42
The Illinois Supreme Court in 1984 held that the standard of "good motives and justifiable
ends" was still appropriate in prosecutions for criminal libel of a private person. The
court emphasized that the criminal libel law at that time applied only to statements containing
"fighting words" that threaten a breach of the peace.43 But that law was repealed in 1986 and
was not replaced. [My source: Illinois Constitution of 1970 Annotated for Legislators, 4th Edition]

And the right peaceably assemble Section 5

Peaceable assembly and petition are also protected by the U.S. Constitution's First
Amendment, which applies to states through the Fourteenth.45 Although reaffirming the right
to assemble peacefully in places that are routinely open to the public, Illinois courts have
upheld arrests for demonstrating inside public buildings after normal closing hours,46 using
force to stay in a college building after being told to leave,47 and attempting to march to an
area where police had forbidden marching due to reasonable fears of violence.48 [Supra, Same source]

And one more for example Section 6 Searches and Seizures

The Illinois Constitution's search and seizure provisions are based on the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but the 1970 Constitution added a guarantee against
invasions of privacy and eavesdropping. Illinois courts have repeatedly held that this section
protects only against government searches and seizures, not against actions by private
persons that were not taken at the instigation of police or other government personnel.49 But
this section does not restrict even government personnel in gathering information from public
sources. Examples of actions by government that have been held not to violate this section
are using public knowledge of an arrest, even though the records of the arrest have been expunged;
50 observing a gun openly visible in a car51 or having dogs sniff for drug scents coming
from airport luggage;52 observing the vehicle identification number of an automobile;53
and observing contraband while in a residence for another valid purpose such as rescue.54
Illinois Appellate Court cases have upheld a statutory requirement that persons convicted of
sex offenses listed in the statute give blood samples for testing.55
Article 1 Bill of Rights ♦ 7
Exclusion of illegally obtained evidence
Under U.S. Supreme Court decisions beginning in 1961, evidence obtained in violation
of the Fourth Amendment may not be admitted in state courts against the person(s)
whose rights were violated.56 The Illinois Supreme Court had applied the same rule since
1923.57 The basic purpose of the Fourth Amendment and this section is to prevent indiscriminate
searches of private homes and possessions. Searches and seizures are to be limited to
situations in which either (1) an immediate search is required, such as the arrest of a person
who might have a concealed weapon, or (2) the police have probable cause to believe a crime
has been committed and can persuade a judge to issue a warrant to search a particular place
and seize a particular person or thing.
Because this so-called "exclusionary rule" for unconstitutionally taken evidence is
designed to discourage police from violating the rights of the innocent—rather than to protect
the guilty—the U.S. Supreme Court has fashioned a "good-faith" exception to it. This
exception says in essence that if police officers believed in good faith that what they were
doing would be held constitutional, evidence they collect should not be barred.58 One or two
Illinois decisions, both by Appellate Court panels, have endorsed such an exception to the
exclusionary rule.59
Invasion of privacy and eavesdropping
As with the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, this section's protection
of privacy applies to government actions, not actions by private persons.60 The Bill of
Rights Committee at the 1970 constitutional convention, which proposed this provision, said
it was intended to guarantee each person "a zone of privacy in which his thoughts and highly
personal behavior [are] not subject to disclosure or review."61 But rather than proposing a
total ban on interception of communications by government, the committee and the full convention
decided to prohibit "unreasonable" interceptions. They specifically said that interception
of a conversation for law-enforcement purposes with the consent of the state's attorney
and one party to the conversation and the approval of a judge, as provided by law,62 would
not be prohibited.63 This constitutional section has been held not to invalidate that law.64
Illinois courts have held that it is illegal for police, without complying with that law
and with the consent of only one party to a phone conversation, to listen in using an extension
telephone if its microphone is disconnected65 (but not if a hand is held over the microphone
to muffle sounds from the listener).66
This section did not invalidate the Illinois Governmental Ethics Act67 or a Governor's
executive order68 requiring financial disclosure from various state officials and employees. [Supra, Same source]

Now here is Section 22 RKBA comments...

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, also dealing with the right to keep
and bear arms, has been held not to restrict state governments in relation to their residents.199
Because of that, and to insure a personal right to keep arms in addition to the collective right
to an armed militia guaranteed by the Second Amendment, the 1970 constitutional convention
proposed this section. The committee explanation stated that "a citizen has the right to
possess and make reasonable use of arms that law-abiding persons commonly employ for
purposes of recreation or the protection of person and property. Laws that attempted to ban
all possession or use of such arms . . . would be invalid."200 However, the delegate who explained
the committee proposal to the full convention stated four times on the floor that it
would not prevent a complete ban on handguns.
201 A nearly total ban on handguns in Morton
Grove was upheld under this section by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago.202 The Illinois
Supreme Court, by 4-3 vote, also held that the Morton Grove ordinance did not violate this
section. Vigorous dissents by the minority judges illustrate the closeness of the question.203
The U.S. Court of Appeals also held that Chicago's ban on buying handguns beginning
in 1982 did not violate the U.S. Constitution, affirming a federal district court decision
that had also upheld the ordinance against attack under this section.204
Illinois Appellate Court decisions have held that this section does not invalidate laws
denying a Firearm Owner's Identification Card (required to buy a firearm legally) to anyone
who has been a patient in a mental institution at any time in the past 5 years,205 and prohibiting
carrying a loaded firearm in a municipality except on one's own premises.206 [Emphasis mine]

It would appear to me that, for instance, no laws abridging any fundamental rights except for the RKBA exist. I have read all 4 Illinois Constitutions and the 1970 Const that we operate under currently is the only with any clause, phrase or mention period of a RKBA. IOWs RKBA was not enumerated because it would have been considered a waste of paper, so to speak. I mean after all who would think about restricting the RKBA in the earlier days. It wasn't till Chicago got to big for its pants that this "Subject to" garbage came about.

My source from IL.gov, save to your hard drive and keep it: http://www.ilga.gov/...onstitution.pdf

Regards, Dr. Dan

Edited by dmefford, 12 January 2012 - 11:50 AM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#23 Federal Farmer

    David Lawson

  • Moderator
  • 9,279 posts
  • Joined: 03-January 07

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:25 PM

None of that regarding other rights than RKBA sustains the argument that they aren't subject to the police powers. It is true that the scope of the police powers is more limited than RKBA, but still there are police powers exercised with respect to each of those rights. Sure the Nazi's can march, but they can be required to purchase a permit, they can be required to provide safety marshals, for example.

People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men [and women] stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

--George Orwell

-- Certified something-or-other by various organizations and governmental entities.

#24 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 12 January 2012 - 10:16 PM

None of that regarding other rights than RKBA sustains the argument that they aren't subject to the police powers. It is true that the scope of the police powers is more limited than RKBA, but still there are police powers exercised with respect to each of those rights. Sure the Nazi's can march, but they can be required to purchase a permit, they can be required to provide safety marshals, for example.


They are required to get permits because the exercise of their right to speech by an organized march creates an interruption in the rights of others to travel freely and the rights of merchants to have room for their customers to ingress and egress their establishments. At that point the exercise of the right becomes subject to the permitting process.

Nevertheless I think you may be right about the many instances of infringement and/or abridgement of rights by the powers that be. I am afraid thread drift might upset the OP individual... this link to an overt infringement just passed by both houses and signed by the Obamunist when they passed National Defense Authorization Act..... And this letter from an Ohio police officer is truly expressive of the infringement....

To the OPoster my apologies if this post is leading to far adrift...

Regards, Dr. Dan

Edited by dmefford, 13 January 2012 - 04:50 AM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#25 Gary

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 752 posts
  • Joined: 28-April 04

Posted 13 January 2012 - 10:58 AM


None of that regarding other rights than RKBA sustains the argument that they aren't subject to the police powers. It is true that the scope of the police powers is more limited than RKBA, but still there are police powers exercised with respect to each of those rights. Sure the Nazi's can march, but they can be required to purchase a permit, they can be required to provide safety marshals, for example.


They are required to get permits because the exercise of their right to speech by an organized march creates an interruption in the rights of others to travel freely and the rights of merchants to have room for their customers to ingress and egress their establishments. At that point the exercise of the right becomes subject to the permitting process.

Nevertheless I think you may be right about the many instances of infringement and/or abridgement of rights by the powers that be. I am afraid thread drift might upset the OP individual... this link to an overt infringement just passed by both houses and signed by the Obamunist when they passed National Defense Authorization Act..... And this letter from an Ohio police officer is truly expressive of the infringement....

To the OPoster my apologies if this post is leading to far adrift...

Regards, Dr. Dan

But the permitting process is not done in an even handed way. What kind of permits did the occupy folks have to get? I could go on and bring in other groups that would be outraged if they were required to get permits to express their anger and such.
Of course there were arrests made but no one tried to break up the occupy protest for lack of permits and, in fact, I think that at least one judge refused to allow the protestors to be removed.

#26 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 17 January 2012 - 03:27 PM



None of that regarding other rights than RKBA sustains the argument that they aren't subject to the police powers. It is true that the scope of the police powers is more limited than RKBA, but still there are police powers exercised with respect to each of those rights. Sure the Nazi's can march, but they can be required to purchase a permit, they can be required to provide safety marshals, for example.


They are required to get permits because the exercise of their right to speech by an organized march creates an interruption in the rights of others to travel freely and the rights of merchants to have room for their customers to ingress and egress their establishments. At that point the exercise of the right becomes subject to the permitting process.

Nevertheless I think you may be right about the many instances of infringement and/or abridgement of rights by the powers that be. I am afraid thread drift might upset the OP individual... this link to an overt infringement just passed by both houses and signed by the Obamunist when they passed National Defense Authorization Act..... And this letter from an Ohio police officer is truly expressive of the infringement....

To the OPoster my apologies if this post is leading to far adrift...

Regards, Dr. Dan

But the permitting process is not done in an even handed way. What kind of permits did the occupy folks have to get? I could go on and bring in other groups that would be outraged if they were required to get permits to express their anger and such.
Of course there were arrests made but no one tried to break up the occupy protest for lack of permits and, in fact, I think that at least one judge refused to allow the protestors to be removed.


I am confident that the process is probably completely unfair in the manner in which the program is handled, however that doesn't make the permitting process unconstitutional, which was my point.
Regards, Drd

Edited by dmefford, 17 January 2012 - 03:28 PM.

Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819

#27 abolt243

    Tim Bowyer

  • Moderator
  • 11,302 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 07

Posted 17 January 2012 - 03:57 PM

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree. As you know "Subject to the police power," refers to the power of the legislature to enact law. In this case, the only case out of 24 Sections in our "Bill of Rights," do the authors insert this particular phrase. Then after this 1970 Constitution is passed all the gun legislation such as the FOID and other travesties are passed........

Unlike the phrase, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a a free state," the phrase, "Subject to the police power," carries some weight. At least that is the way it appears to me...

Regards, Dr. Dan


Actually, the FOID was implemented in 1968 in response to the Democratic convention riots. I've heard that the first Daley was the biggest proponent of the FOID, but it was his second choice when he couldn't get a national handgun registry or ban, but I don't have documentation to back up those stories.

Tim
Are you a member of the ISRA?? If not, why not?? Join over 18,000 other Illinois gun owners in the fight for your rights!!!

The Roman Empire fell due to a large, corrupt government, overspending, an overextended military, insecure borders, and the illegal immigration of Goths, barbarians (anyone who was not educated), and religious fanatics. Sound familiar?


"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

Luke 11:21 - "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are undisturbed." NASB


#28 dmefford

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 273 posts
  • Joined: 16-August 11

Posted 17 January 2012 - 04:17 PM

Actually, the FOID was implemented in 1968 in response to the Democratic convention riots. I've heard that the first Daley was the biggest proponent of the FOID, but it was his second choice when he couldn't get a national handgun registry or ban, but I don't have documentation to back up those stories.

Tim


Actually I think you are right on the 1968..... Like any other infringements it doesn't make it right.

Regards, DrD
Visit my Blog: "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
--Thomas Jefferson to I. Tiffany, 1819