What other rights would you have us make up?

[MrPerson]

Along with "gun rights"

[Taitertots]

1. The whole constitution was made up n/t

[rrneck]

2. The right

to a reasonable conversation with someone who is capable of engaging their brain before putting their mouth in motion.

[MrPerson]

4. Face it. Its a right to own a toy.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. If that's what you believe then go about trying to repeal it.

and kiss the next several elections goodbye.

David

[rl6214]

3. Engage your brain

and disengage your keyboard and maybe you could figure it out.

The second amendment is a right, just like the first.

[jody]

5. You really do need to read SCOTUS on D.C. v. Heller and Amici for Respondents & Petitioner. You have

no idea about RKBA that you oppose.

SCOTUS on D.C. v. Heller

Amici for Respondents & Petitioner

If you do not give an intelligent reply, I'll keep my opinion you are just another young, ignorant gun-grabber beetle rolling s###.

[MrPerson]

7. I read it a while ago. About 1000 cases ago.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. And yet you haven't addressed a word of it...

Why is that?

[MrPerson]

12. I wasn't paid to read it. Sorry. I'll have to read it again.

[beevul]

9. 1000 cases in ten months? N/T

[MrPerson]

16. Yes. I'm a lawyer. With access to Westlaw.

And always having to do briefs.

[jody]

13. If you read Heller then you are either maliciously making false statements or you have

a comprehension problem.

[MrPerson]

14. Or give it a rest. Jeez.

[jody]

18. You should follow your own advice and "give it a rest. Jeez." You accomplish nothing by posting

unsupported assertions that are clearly at variance with facts that are easily available so even the most incompetent Internet user can google to refute your statements.

SCOTUS said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

You can continue to fight SCOTUS' decision if you wish but don't expect to win if you arm yourself with hysterical-rants in a fact-fight.

[MrPerson]

27. Watch that SCOTUS decision get limited as time passes, BTW.

[jody]

30. RE "SCOTUS decision get limited". Understand but IMO the question posed by SCOTUS was so narrow and

the issue so broad it will take many cases to sort out.

One thorny issue is Nordyke v. King which asks the court to "incorporate" the Second Amendment against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

[TWiley]

19. wow, not a bad argument from a third grader .....

[jody]

20. From your posts one might conclude you speak from current experience. n/t

[TWiley]

24. well, your attack on the Lawyer was personal, and not issue related.

This is considered a logical fallacy. It is something a third grader does.

[jody]

25. Sorry, the post was "I read it a while ago. About 1000 cases ago." My reply challenged the

credibility of an unsupported assertion masquerading as an authoritative statement from a self-proclaimed expert.

[MrPerson]

28. I'm not an expert on Second Amendment law.

I'm a bankruptcy lawyer. My position is purely emotional.

[jody]

29. "bankruptcy lawyer"! You guys are the only ones with a growing clientele. Regarding the 2nd, some

people don't know SCOTUS says government is not responsible for protecting individuals, i.e. self-defense is a personal problem.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (No. 87-154) 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

As we said in Harris v. McRae:
Although the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference, . . . it does not confer an entitlement to such {governmental aid} as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.
448 U.S. at 317-318 (emphasis added). If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot {p197} be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them. As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES (04-278) 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.

[TWiley]

23. .

.

[NewMoonTherian]

6. I would expand private property rights.

Like, to an unreasonable extent.

I can't think of anything I'd really make up out of thin air. I'd like to get rid of the writ of imminent domain.

I'm mostly into property stuff. Is that the kind of answer you're looking for?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

11. In regards to eminent domain.

I believe that the need should be a government need and the government should have to pay at least 3 times the true market value.

David

[NewMoonTherian]

15. I could go for that.

It would certainly be progress from the nightmare we're stuck with now. But people are still, in many cases, being forced off of land owned by their family for generations, for unjust reasons. I don't think the price should be artificially inflated - it's taxpayer money and I want it spent efficiently or not at all - but I think it should be the landowner's decision whether to sell. There is other land to be had nearby, land that's already been developed and to which its owners probably aren't as attached. That bridge can go up a half-mile down the river.

[BigBluenoser]

17. To a certain degree I agree with FireMedicDave...

There should be a substantial nuisance fee (as in the nuisance to the property owner). What substantial means, not sure, pick a number between 25% - 100% :)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

34. I agree, in New Jersey where the city used eminent domain and then gave the property....

to a casino that should be illegal.

David

[slackmaster]

21. Your question is stupid especially from a lawyer, MrPerson - All rights already exist,

Except the finite set of rights that have been curtailed or restricted or eliminated through due process of law. We have the right to say, own, or do anything that has not been explicitly proscribed by law.

That's how our legal system works in this country, unlike Cuba where the only rights that exist are those granted in the Cuban constitution.

http://www.walterlippmann.com/cubanconstitution.html

Are you really a lawyer, or are you just pulling our legs?

[jody]

22. SCOTUS addressed the issue in Heller and only a person who is comprehension-challenged can fail to

understand that statement.

Page 19 of SCOTUS' decision on Heller:

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”

ON EDIT ADD:
By referring to the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, it’s clear that SCOTUS used "pre-existing right" in the same sense that PA and VT used “natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable rights”.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA - 28 Sept. 1776 "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATE OF VERMONT- July 8, 1777
“I. THAT all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.”

NOTE PA and VT statements differ only in the use of “inalienable” versus “unalienable”, a difference that occurred when the Declaration of Independence was written with Jefferson using “inalienable” and Adams using “unalienable”. Apparently Adams had the final say and the DOI used “unalienable”.

[MrPerson]

26. Yet people still question the right to privacy stated in Griswold.

I don't, but I use it as an example.

[-..__...]

31. Right to privacy...

gay marriage, right to choose.

I've read the entire text of the US Constitution, and I'll be damned if I can find any mention of those rights anywhere.

Maybe you can point them out for us?

[MrPerson]

32. Funny you should mention that

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,898883,00.html

From 1965.

[-..__...]

33. Yes...

I know all about the "penumbra".

I also know that it's an interpretation as decided by a court of law, and unlike the 2nd amendment, nowhere in the BOR or Constitution are those rights specifically mentioned, protected, guaranteed or prohibits controlling legislation by the government.