You make some good points with respect to politics, especially politics here.

It’s beyond me, however I’m super happy to see some pro 2A people like us getting into the legislature.  I should try to understand better how they’re winning - maybe rural versus urban electorate?

They have money to spend on marketing and payroll and the media supports them.

We are all doing this for free.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Those two statements are mutually exclusive and unconstitutional as pointed out by the US Supreme Court.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court issued a decision that, among other things, said the following:https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

If you continue reading the decision, you'll see that the "means-end scrutiny" includes the state's weighing of public safety against the ability of the individual to exercise a constitutionally protected right.  No other item in the Bill of Rights can be limited because the state deems it in the interest of the public at large, which makes laws that do so with regard to the Second Amendment inconsistent.

I'n 5th grader terms, you can't take away, nor limit, my rights just because you feel it benefits society as a whole.

Good point

I don't think it is accurate to say no other item can be limited because of public interest. The most simple example would be how you could be denied a request to hold a noisy political rally at 2am in a residential area. In a much more touchy subject, the government justifies vaccine mandates and other health related controls during an epidemic because of public interest. Bruen would apply to the 2nd amendment but it might be a mistake to assume that mean-end scrutiny can't be applied to any other rights related issues.

Good point

I don't think it is accurate to say no other item can be limited because of public interest. The most simple example would be how you could be denied a request to hold a noisy political rally at 2am in a residential area. In a much more touchy subject, the government justifies vaccine mandates and other health related controls during an epidemic because of public interest. Bruen would apply to the 2nd amendment but it might be a mistake to assume that mean-end scrutiny can't be applied to any other rights related issues.

Is your example real or just a hypothetical?  Flapps post said "No other item in the Bill of Rights can be limited because the state deems it in the interest of the public at large". Which means if you don't think the state can do this, then you have to provide a real example of a noisy political rally at 2a being denied. That's why I'm asking you to clarify your example.

Good point

I don't think it is accurate to say no other item can be limited because of public interest. The most simple example would be how you could be denied a request to hold a noisy political rally at 2am in a residential area. In a much more touchy subject, the government justifies vaccine mandates and other health related controls during an epidemic because of public interest. Bruen would apply to the 2nd amendment but it might be a mistake to assume that mean-end scrutiny can't be applied to any other rights related issues.

I never said there couldn't be limits on where, when or how you can exercise your rights.

A 2AM political rally is a horrible example.  Who is going to attend?  How many more people are you going to alienate from your cause by disrupting people's sleep?

Nobody is limiting what you can say, they are just making you respect the RIGHTS of others to peacefully enjoy their lives without being kept awake by loud noises.  It falls under the heading of "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose."  The same would apply to target practice in your back yard at 2am if you have neighbors.  But, if someone is breaking into your house at 2am, you have every right to lawfully discharge your firearm in defense of self, others and/or property.

That's completely different from benefiting society at large.  Society has no right to feel safe.  In fact, society has no constitutionally guaranteed rights at all.  Show me one right under the Constitution's Bill of Rights which addresses anything other than individual rights.  To keep and bear arms, to vote, to be secure in their private letters and property, to express opinions and themselves, to worship as they choose .... each and every one is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT protected against government infringement. 

BTW, there is no 1A restriction against yelling fire in a crowded theater -- because there might actually be a fire justifying such.  Instead, the laws are in place to punish ABUSE of the right of free speech in cases of inciting violence or injury to theater-goers from a false announcement of a nonexistent fire.  Nobody says you can't say it, just be prepared to accept the consequences if you abuse the right to hurt others (that end of my nose thing again).

I never said there couldn't be limits on where, when or how you can exercise your rights.

A 2AM political rally is a horrible example.  Who is going to attend?  How many more people are you going to alienate from your cause by disrupting people's sleep?

Nobody is limiting what you can say, they are just making you respect the RIGHTS of others to peacefully enjoy their lives without being kept awake by loud noises.  It falls under the heading of "Your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose."  The same would apply to target practice in your back yard at 2am if you have neighbors.  But, if someone is breaking into your house at 2am, you have every right to lawfully discharge your firearm in defense of self, others and/or property.

That's completely different from benefiting society at large.  Society has no right to feel safe.  In fact, society has no constitutionally guaranteed rights at all.  Show me one right under the Constitution's Bill of Rights which addresses anything other than individual rights.  To keep and bear arms, to vote, to be secure in their private letters and property, to express opinions and themselves, to worship as they choose .... each and every one is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT protected against government infringement. 

BTW, there is no 1A restriction against yelling fire in a crowded theater -- because there might actually be a fire justifying such.  Instead, the laws are in place to punish ABUSE of the right of free speech in cases of inciting violence or injury to theater-goers from a false announcement of a nonexistent fire.  Nobody says you can't say it, just be prepared to accept the consequences if you abuse the right to hurt others (that end of my nose thing again).

The point of the political rally is not whether it would be effective for the group seeking to hold it, the point is that it would not be allowed because of the interest of the public. If you had a 100 acre farm and wanted to hold a 2am political rally you could because it wouldn't affect the community.
Here is a case example since CMO asked
Case Name: Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
Decision: The Court held that although music is a form of protected expression, the city could regulate volume levels at concerts in Central Park to prevent excessive noise disturbing nearby residents without violating the First Amendment.

Some rights mentioned in the bill of rights speak of the right of "the people", other rights do not say "the people" but address the rights on a level of the individual. For example the 5th amendment says "no person", the 6th mentions "the accused". The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community. If the 2nd amendment applied to an individual then it would stand to reason that no person could be denied the right to own firearms yet we have laws that restrict the ownership of firearms (minors, felons, people convicted of domestic violence, mentally handicapped, etc.) Compare that to individual rights where even people convicted of felonies, minors, etc. still get legal protections.

The point of the political rally is not whether it would be effective for the group seeking to hold it, the point is that it would not be allowed because of the interest of the public. If you had a 100 acre farm and wanted to hold a 2am political rally you could because it wouldn't affect the community.
Here is a case example since CMO asked
Case Name: Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
Decision: The Court held that although music is a form of protected expression, the city could regulate volume levels at concerts in Central Park to prevent excessive noise disturbing nearby residents without violating the First Amendment.

Some rights mentioned in the bill of rights speak of the right of "the people", other rights do not say "the people" but address the rights on a level of the individual. For example the 5th amendment says "no person", the 6th mentions "the accused". The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community. If the 2nd amendment applied to an individual then it would stand to reason that no person could be denied the right to own firearms yet we have laws that restrict the ownership of firearms (minors, felons, people convicted of domestic violence, mentally handicapped, etc.) Compare that to individual rights where even people convicted of felonies, minors, etc. still get legal protections.

Your example said "denied a request to hold a noisy..."

What you typed above was the city could regulate volume levels.  Which implies that there is no "denial".  Unless you forgot to type that part out too.

More proof of your bad examples.

The point of the political rally is not whether it would be effective for the group seeking to hold it, the point is that it would not be allowed because of the interest of the public. If you had a 100 acre farm and wanted to hold a 2am political rally you could because it wouldn't affect the community.
Here is a case example since CMO asked
Case Name: Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989)
Decision: The Court held that although music is a form of protected expression, the city could regulate volume levels at concerts in Central Park to prevent excessive noise disturbing nearby residents without violating the First Amendment.

Some rights mentioned in the bill of rights speak of the right of "the people", other rights do not say "the people" but address the rights on a level of the individual. For example the 5th amendment says "no person", the 6th mentions "the accused". The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community. If the 2nd amendment applied to an individual then it would stand to reason that no person could be denied the right to own firearms yet we have laws that restrict the ownership of firearms (minors, felons, people convicted of domestic violence, mentally handicapped, etc.) Compare that to individual rights where even people convicted of felonies, minors, etc. still get legal protections.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is an individual right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home.  That Amendment plainly states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Please show documented legal support for your belief that "The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community," with something other than words spilling out of your head.

Good point

I don't think it is accurate to say no other item can be limited because of public interest. The most simple example would be how you could be denied a request to hold a noisy political rally at 2am in a residential area. In a much more touchy subject, the government justifies vaccine mandates and other health related controls during an epidemic because of public interest. Bruen would apply to the 2nd amendment but it might be a mistake to assume that mean-end scrutiny can't be applied to any other rights related issues.

I had to come back and correct your other "points".

When it comes to vaccinations and public safety, there is a presumption that the vaccine is safe and effective.  However, if anyone rejects that notion and instead wishes to rely on their religious beliefs -- whether that means vaccines are deemed to be against their teachings or that the mandatory nature of it conflicts with their teachings -- then the INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT under the 1A prevails.  That means the government cannot violate your 1A right to the presumed benefit of society when mandating vaccinations.

That same argument holds true to birth control and abortions.  An insurer may not charge you for premiums on a policy that includes abortions for all covered individuals if that practice violates your religious beliefs.  That would be like sending USAID money to Satan Worshipers, which I suspect may potentially be happening anyway.

You've tried to conjure up what-about-this examples but failed.  Please show where what you CLAIM has actually occurred when it comes to the Bill of Rights -- that being that the rights have been violated or limited in favor of benefitting society at large.

The freedom of religion can be restricted if their practices constitute a threat to the public order and the rights of others.  in most instances, if the religion, cult, whatever practices their teachings in a way that conforms to society's expectations, such as sanitation, treatment of animals, public decency and noise restrictions, etc., they are free to practice as they wish.

Take that example and apply it to all other rights.  You'll see that "public benefit" does NOT trump individual rights if the rights are exercised within reasonable bounds (that includes your 2am protest march).  i know of no reasonable justification for marching at 2am to protest the government.  Most protesters don't have jobs, so it's not like they have to miss work!

Maybe this will help anyone who doesn't fully understand what the means-end scrutiny test is, and why it's part of the process for determining constitutionality of government actions/laws.  After Bruen, the courts must use the Text, History and Tradition test instead of the 9th Circus' version that says that a gun law is constitutional if it "is reasonably related to the government’s interest in reducing gun violence."  Talk about a subjective test for ones rights!

I think EEF would be a proper fit on the 9th Circuit Court given that our actual laws and constitutional rights are pliable in his view based on the needs of the government and society.

https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1557&context=llr

Going back to the vaccine mandates, I can recall so clearly (and certainly so can most reading this) the black threat that rolled over the land ahead of the mRNA injections, as virtually overnight, every hive meat-puppet in the land began gleefully murmuring about Jacobson v. Massachusetts, and how it was law that all citizens must submit to government sanctioned injections once they are decreed.

It was like this concept and ridiculously obscure Supreme Court case were sent out from every cell tower and received by tiny chips implanted in their heads.  All saying the exact same thing, from politicians to academics, to the nose-ringed baristas at Starbucks.

ALL OF THEM KNOWING EXACTLY NOTHING ABOUT WHAT IT WAS.

They were going to use the full force of law, and every node of authority they had infiltrated in every strata of society, to force this on each citizen.  They themselves of course eager for it, yes, just like it was some sacrament of THE STATE.

At that moment, any last shred of belief that I had that we live in an intrinsically civilized and lawful society where the atrocities of human history could never impinge again, was wiped out.

On planet earth, there is no law or security for any society except for that which is backed by force.

I am certain that the totalitarians, to this day, cannot grasp that millions of people were forced to this same understanding by what they attempted with COVID.  They are baffled by their stunning political loses in its wake.  Being totalitarians, they are perfectly incapable of associating the one with the other, which is why they’re equally incapable of ever stopping.

So we strengthen up, organize up, prep up, and step up to face off with them, because the time for wishful thinking is long gone.

Wrong.

The Second Amendment is an individual right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home.  That Amendment plainly states:
Please show documented legal support for your belief that "The right of the people is more akin to the right of society, or the right of a community," with something other than words spilling out of your head.

I quoted the words of the Bill of Rights, so no, not wrong.
I gave you concrete examples, which you ignored, of how some rights listed as being of "the people" have been restricted to certain individuals while individual rights are maintained by every individual so don't go pretending I made something up out of nothing.  I also gave examples of when collective rights can be restricted.

Note that I am not making the argument that the government can freely infringe on the rights of any individual merely because the amendment says "the people" instead of the individual.  I still agree that any individual denied a right whether it was an individual right or a collective right (the people) but there is a difference between a collective right and an individual right.

The SCOTUS decided in Heller to interpret "the people" to include the individual, I am not disputing that. There are different views on how to interpret the text of the constitution and the court in Heller decided to interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right compared to a collective right. That doesn't make it right or wrong per se, rather it just tells us how the government is to apply the 2nd amendment.

https://ivn.us/2012/12/21/second-amendment-individual-rights-vs-collective-rights

On top of this particular question is another key question on whether a restriction/regulation actually infringes on the second amendment. So even if we settle a question about whether firearm rights are protected at the individual level the next question to answer is whether the law infringes on the right.

Your example said "denied a request to hold a noisy..."

What you typed above was the city could regulate volume levels. 

You are trying to split two things that go together without even putting much thought into it. Yes, the city can regulate volume levels at certain times even though that means a political or religious really would be prevented from holding its function. The fact is that the first amendment doesn't trump any and all other regulations, it is not something that cannot be restricted in specific ways.

I quoted the words of the Bill of Rights, so no, not wrong.
I gave you concrete examples, which you ignored, of how some rights listed as being of "the people" have been restricted to certain individuals while individual rights are maintained by every individual so don't go pretending I made something up out of nothing.  I also gave examples of when collective rights can be restricted.

Note that I am not making the argument that the government can freely infringe on the rights of any individual merely because the amendment says "the people" instead of the individual.  I still agree that any individual denied a right whether it was an individual right or a collective right (the people) but there is a difference between a collective right and an individual right.

The SCOTUS decided in Heller to interpret "the people" to include the individual, I am not disputing that. There are different views on how to interpret the text of the constitution and the court in Heller decided to interpret the 2nd amendment as an individual right compared to a collective right. That doesn't make it right or wrong per se, rather it just tells us how the government is to apply the 2nd amendment.

https://ivn.us/2012/12/21/second-amendment-individual-rights-vs-collective-rights

On top of this particular question is another key question on whether a restriction/regulation actually infringes on the second amendment. So even if we settle a question about whether firearm rights are protected at the individual level the next question to answer is whether the law infringes on the right.

Explain how "the people" are capable of exercising a "collective right" WITHOUT each individual being independently capable of exercising that right.

Unless you can find some way for that to happen, then you're arguing a distinction without a difference.

I had to come back and correct your other "points".

When it comes to vaccinations and public safety, there is a presumption that the vaccine is safe and effective.  However, if anyone rejects that notion and instead wishes to rely on their religious beliefs -- whether that means vaccines are deemed to be against their teachings or that the mandatory nature of it conflicts with their teachings -- then the INDIVIDUAL'S RIGHT under the 1A prevails.  That means the government cannot violate your 1A right to the presumed benefit of society when mandating vaccinations.

That same argument holds true to birth control and abortions.  An insurer may not charge you for premiums on a policy that includes abortions for all covered individuals if that practice violates your religious beliefs.  That would be like sending USAID money to Satan Worshipers, which I suspect may potentially be happening anyway.

You've tried to conjure up what-about-this examples but failed.  Please show where what you CLAIM has actually occurred when it comes to the Bill of Rights -- that being that the rights have been violated or limited in favor of benefitting society at large.

The freedom of religion can be restricted if their practices constitute a threat to the public order and the rights of others.  in most instances, if the religion, cult, whatever practices their teachings in a way that conforms to society's expectations, such as sanitation, treatment of animals, public decency and noise restrictions, etc., they are free to practice as they wish.

Take that example and apply it to all other rights.  You'll see that "public benefit" does NOT trump individual rights if the rights are exercised within reasonable bounds (that includes your 2am protest march).  i know of no reasonable justification for marching at 2am to protest the government.  Most protesters don't have jobs, so it's not like they have to miss work!

You are applying your own test of reasonableness when looking at the regulations on noisy gatherings, that's not how rights work. It doesn't matter whether you or I think it makes sense to have a 2am protest, the question is whether the government can restrict the protest in the interest of the community. If the 1st amendment was never trumped by the interested of the community then it would be impossible to ever prohibit a political or religious rally. The test here is that the regulation cannot be content based meaning that the city can deny a 2am rally because it is too noisy for the community, but they cannot deny the 2am rally based on the message of the rally.

Regarding the vaccine mandate question, the supreme court did hear a case on this, Zucht v. King

Supreme Court Decision: The Court, in a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Louis Brandeis, ruled that public health and safety laws, including vaccination requirements, fall within the police powers of the state. The Court affirmed the validity of such ordinances, citing a precedent in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) which upheld the state's authority to mandate vaccinations for public health purposes, even in the absence of a public health emergency.

When I mentioned an epidemic the issue isn't just related to vaccine mandates either, it encompasses all sorts of issues including travel, detaining someone who is sick, requiring a mask to be worn, etc.

Explain how "the people" are capable of exercising a "collective right" WITHOUT each individual being independently capable of exercising that right.

Unless you can find some way for that to happen, then you're arguing a distinction without a difference.

I never made an argument that people can exercise a collective right without the individual being able to exercise the right. I only showed that there are times where individuals have been denied collective rights even though they are not denied individual rights.
You can take up an argument of individual rights vs collective rights with legal scholars if you wish to tell them there isn't a difference.

I am certain that the totalitarians, to this day, cannot grasp that millions of people were forced to this same understanding by what they attempted with COVID.  They are baffled by their stunning political loses in its wake.  Being totalitarians, they are perfectly incapable of associating the one with the other, which is why they’re equally incapable of ever stopping.

So we strengthen up, organize up, prep up, and step up to face off with them, because the time for wishful thinking is long gone.

Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls. I am not saying COVID was the appropriate time to apply these regulations but I think it is hard to deny that there may be times where they may become necessary. If there was a disease which had something like a fatality rate of 50% and it spread easily are you going to want to maintain the status quo? Do we get to restrict the rights of individuals to travel freely? If I had this disease do I get to go to a public park? Basically just pointing out it is a difficult question to answer but not allowing the government any power to place regulations during an epidemic wouldn't be a workable option.

Of course the difficult thing is finding the right balance of when to put them in place and when to ease them off because of the nature of a pandemic a disease might seem very dangerous at first or it might seem minor at first and things change as we learn more.

The HRS has a section about regulations for quarantining individuals, a bit dry but as I recall interesting to see how the law spells out a process.

You are applying your own test of reasonableness when looking at the regulations on noisy gatherings, that's not how rights work. It doesn't matter whether you or I think it makes sense to have a 2am protest, the question is whether the government can restrict the protest in the interest of the community. If the 1st amendment was never trumped by the interested of the community then it would be impossible to ever prohibit a political or religious rally. The test here is that the regulation cannot be content based meaning that the city can deny a 2am rally because it is too noisy for the community, but they cannot deny the 2am rally based on the message of the rally.

Regarding the vaccine mandate question, the supreme court did hear a case on this, Zucht v. King
When I mentioned an epidemic the issue isn't just related to vaccine mandates either, it encompasses all sorts of issues including travel, detaining someone who is sick, requiring a mask to be worn, etc.

Stupid argument.

You can exercise your right to protest, but within the context of not creating a public nuisance or threat.  Do you think these idiots protesting in the middle of the freeways have a right to do that just because protesting is protected speech?  The government has every right to remove them where they are interfering with the free travel of others and putting themselves and drivers at risk of injury.

That doesn't meant they can't protest.  They just need to find a manner that doesn't create a risk to safety or interfere with others' rights.  What would happen if someone decided to run over a protester standing in the middle of the road and called it a counter-protest?  Some places have passed laws protecting drivers if they accidentally hit a protestor who was standing in the roadway.  In the end, people do get arrested for their choice of protest actions.  While the right exists, it's not a free pass for disruption of others' lives or threat to others' safety.

"You are applying your own test of reasonableness ...". 

So, are you saying i'm supposed to apply someone else's test of reasonableness?  I'm not a mind reader like you, so mine is the only test i can apply in the absence of legal statutes and ordinances. 

Or, you are saying I must apply your test of reasonableness and not that of the Supreme Court when interpreting the Second Amendment.  I'm not saying the SCOTUS is perfect given the Liberal decisions they made for decades, but when it comes to the law, you are not allowed to substitute your opinion for theirs without there being consequences. 

I guess narcissists have a problem accepting anyone else's opinions even if the opinion is the law of the land.

I never made an argument that people can exercise a collective right without the individual being able to exercise the right. I only showed that there are times where individuals have been denied collective rights even though they are not denied individual rights.
You can take up an argument of individual rights vs collective rights with legal scholars if you wish to tell them there isn't a difference.

Once again, you're just arguing to argue.

Your explanation is pure gobbledygook.

Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls. I am not saying COVID was the appropriate time to apply these regulations but I think it is hard to deny that there may be times where they may become necessary. If there was a disease which had something like a fatality rate of 50% and it spread easily are you going to want to maintain the status quo? Do we get to restrict the rights of individuals to travel freely? If I had this disease do I get to go to a public park? Basically just pointing out it is a difficult question to answer but not allowing the government any power to place regulations during an epidemic wouldn't be a workable option.

Of course the difficult thing is finding the right balance of when to put them in place and when to ease them off because of the nature of a pandemic a disease might seem very dangerous at first or it might seem minor at first and things change as we learn more.

The HRS has a section about regulations for quarantining individuals, a bit dry but as I recall interesting to see how the law spells out a process.

"Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls."

No need to pretend like there needs to be a "thought [sic] experiment".  If the situation you propose existed, we already have contingency plans to contain the outbreak.  It starts with declaring martial law.  That alone gives the government the power necessary to put a pause on the Constitution in order to protect the nation from a threat to everyone's lives -- be it a hostile threat of violence or a natural one. Even a biological threat could originate as a hostile use of a bio weapon.

Don't try to reinvent the wheel.  Do some research instead.

Not disagreeing exactly but if you will engage in a though experiment, I think there are times where, during a pandemic, you would see the need for these controls. I am not saying COVID was the appropriate time to apply these regulations but I think it is hard to deny that there may be times where they may become necessary. If there was a disease which had something like a fatality rate of 50% and it spread easily are you going to want to maintain the status quo? Do we get to restrict the rights of individuals to travel freely? If I had this disease do I get to go to a public park? Basically just pointing out it is a difficult question to answer but not allowing the government any power to place regulations during an epidemic wouldn't be a workable option.

Of course the difficult thing is finding the right balance of when to put them in place and when to ease them off because of the nature of a pandemic a disease might seem very dangerous at first or it might seem minor at first and things change as we learn more.

The HRS has a section about regulations for quarantining individuals, a bit dry but as I recall interesting to see how the law spells out a process.

Kalihi Uka is going to learn this is how EEF replies. "thought experiment" aka wasting peoples time.