A constitutional right to privacy?

uscitizen said:
Yes a judicial intrepretation. Just as donating money is free speech. Or paying someone to speak for you.
The founders apparently did not want to delve that deep into personal lives. And yes abortion methods existed in their times as well.

but what about my question on gun registration?

Abortion diversion aborted :D
Click to expand...

According to the Pro Death side there is a right to privacy in the constitution. As to your comment about the 2nd Amendment, it does not use the words banned or prohibited, it uses the word "infringed," which means regulation probably does violate the Constitution...
 
Epicurus said:
There should be a constitutional amendment that guarantees a right to privacy.

Roe vs. Wade will be overturned someday, and I don't want the fate of a right as important as privacy to rely on that poorly decided and politically-fragile precedent.
Click to expand...

You mean Griswald v. Connecticut. Griswald establishes the privacy, Roe merely claims that killing is a private matter.
 
uscitizen said:
Link?

I did not know of any california confiscation.

I think fully auto weapons were confiscated too, but that was before registration I think.
Click to expand...

So now everythng you've professed, really had no basis and were just instead what you were THINKING!!

1. A class-action lawsuit filed in Sacramento Superior Court challenges potential prosecution of California assault weapons owners who registered their weapons during a grace period extending from March 1992 to July 1998.

http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/lawsuit2.shtml

2. GUN CONFISCATION BEGINS
Gun Law Victim Holds Press Conference
And Turns In Gun To Local Officials


Rocklin, Calif. -- Today, in the village of Rocklin, California crossed the line between a gun control state and a gun confiscation state. At a press conference in his Rocklin, California, hometown, Mr. William Doss presented his SKS Sporter rifle to local law enforcement for confiscation -- a firearm previously and expressly deemed acceptable by California Attorney General Dan Lungren.

"The gun ban movement has never had more than a passing interest in gun control," observed Mrs. Tanya K. Metaksa, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, "Their goal has always been gun confiscation. Today, in California, the dream of the gun ban movement has been realized. Today, California is confiscating guns and threatening law-abiding citizens with prosecution."

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/states/c2980128.html

3. Confiscation comes to California
Lungren fulfills Feinstein's fantasy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Daryl N. Davis

They said it would never happen. Any suggestion that it would was derided as "NRA paranoia." They told us they only wanted "reasonable controls."
Well, it has happened. Gun confiscation is now the law in California. Thank you, Dan Lungren!

In a letter dated November 24, 1997, The Man Who Would Be Governor declared that SKS rifles with detachable magazines, unless the owners can prove they acquired the rifles prior to June 1, 1989, are illegal "and must be relinquished to a local police or sheriff's department." This is a reversal of the opinion held by Mr. Lungren from the time he took office in January 1991, and which has been conveyed in numerous training sessions for peace officers, criminalists and prosecutors during the past four years.
When the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) became law in January 1989, it included "SKS with detachable magazine." At that time, there were two distinct models-one with a fixed magazine (Type 56) and one with a detachable, AK-47 magazine (Type 84). President Bush banned importation of the Type 84 in 1990. Later that year, aftermarket detachable magazines (which are not interchangeable with the AK-47 magazine) became available for SKS rifles originally designed to use only a fixed magazine.
Until September 1997, Mr. Lungren's position had been that only the Type 84 was an "assault weapon." He allowed the sale of the aftermarket detachable magazines and of SKS rifles equipped with them. He also allowed the sale of the SKS Sporter, basically a Type 84 that, in compliance with the import restrictions imposed by President Bush, had its bayonet lug ground off and was fitted to a sporting stock rather than a military stock.

http://www.afn.org/~govern/ramble/getguns.html

Do you need more??
 
California, it figures...

CA is like a bowl of granola, what isn't fruits and flakes are nuts.

But there is still no constitutional right of privacy relating to gun registration.
 
uscitizen said:
California, it figures...

CA is like a bowl of granola, what isn't fruits and flakes are nuts.

But there is still no constitutional right of privacy relating to gun registration.
Click to expand...

What does your latest comment have to do with you professing that registration has never led to confiscation?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
What does your latest comment have to do with you professing that registration has never led to confiscation?
Click to expand...

Nothing, it just goes back to the topic of this thread pre hijack era.

Thanks for the news though, I did not know there was another town as dumb as morton grove IL.

Btw how did that turn out? Both of your links just said they were gonna take the guns, any follow up? Did they actually do it?
 
Last edited:
uscitizen said:
Nothing, it just goes back to the topic of this thread pre hijack era.

Thanks for the news though, I did not know there was another town as dumb as morton grove IL.

Btw how did that turn out? Both of your links just said they were gonna take the guns, any follow up? Did they actually do it?
Click to expand...

Then why did you post this:
"the argument has been raised throughout our history that registration leads to confiscation"

And this has proven to be untrue, except in cases of crimes or mental instability."


The California authorities confiscated as many as they could find and made it a criminal act to own one.
 
uscitizen said:
Show me in the constitution where it guarantees a right to privacy. Is the word privacy even in the constitution?

This question is aimed at those saying we should only go by the constitution.
Click to expand...

It's the implied intent that the majority court used that gives a woman the so called right to choose to kill her unborn child. Do you say that should not be?
 
uscitizen said:
Yes 3D, courts and legislatures can set privacy standards, but it is not a constitutional right.
That was my point of this thread.
Click to expand...

But SCOTUS used the supposed constitutional intent of privacy to make abortions a privacy issue. Imagine saying "yes there is a live human being, but because it is inside of you and you are a woman you have a privacy right to decide to kill it."
 
Ice Dancer said:
But SCOTUS used the supposed constitutional intent of privacy to make abortions a privacy issue. Imagine saying "yes there is a live human being, but because it is inside of you and you are a woman you have a privacy right to decide to kill it."
Click to expand...

Privacy ? Are you sure?
In any case it is a judicial intrepretation.
As are most of our laws.
 
uscitizen said:
Another abortion attempt aborted.
Click to expand...

I read all of your lame non-responses to a fundamental argument that relies on the so called right to the privacy to kill your child. Obviously you were unaware of all the liberal precedents founded on that clause before you made your post...LOL
 
uscitizen said:
Privacy ? Are you sure?
In any case it is a judicial intrepretation.
As are most of our laws.
Click to expand...

You cannot have it both ways. Either the implication to an actual right exists in our constitution or it does not. If it does not then Roe is bogus. Though I believe that based on some of the assenting opinions that depended on the trimester argument that modern science would also throw a monkey wrench into Roe without a clarification on how the privacy intent applies to the abortion debate!
 
Ice Dancer said:
You cannot have it both ways. Either the implication to an actual right exists in our constitution or it does not. If it does not then Roe is bogus. Though I believe that based on some of the assenting opinions that depended on the trimester argument that modern science would also throw a monkey wrench into Roe without a clarification on how the privacy intent applies to the abortion debate!
Click to expand...

It is not up to me, but we do indeed have it both ways.

Freedom of speech is in the constitution, but it does not say money is free speech. That is an intrepretation as well.
 
uscitizen said:
California, it figures...

CA is like a bowl of granola, what isn't fruits and flakes are nuts.

But there is still no constitutional right of privacy relating to gun registration.
Click to expand...

then I would ask you to show, where in the constitution, does it give the government ANY power to keep a registry of civilian owned weapons.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You cannot have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Wrong!

Liberals can have it anyway they want it. Whichever way best fits their argumenat at a given time works and if it doesn't work well, they only need to claim the Constitution is a living document and it means what they say it means, when they say it and only as long as they say it.

USC is a good guy and fun to read, but that is just the way it is.

Immie
 
uscitizen said:
Show me in the constitution where it guarantees a right to privacy. Is the word privacy even in the constitution?

This question is aimed at those saying we should only go by the constitution.
Click to expand...

A parallel question to that is "Where does it state in the constitution that there should (or is) a seperation of Church and State?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
it's called the Fourth Amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This means that unless properly submitted evidence and affidavits are reviewed by a judge and then a warrant describing specifically whats to be searched is issued, we have a right to privacy.

not that it's adhered to much nowadays....thanks libs and cons.
Click to expand...

Beep! Wrong answer.

Those are specific aspects of privacy. They do not imply an express, across the board, right to privacy. The first, 3rd and 5th amendments also address specific privacy rights too but, again, do not gaurentee a broad express right to privacy.

Modern Jurist interpret that it is the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees a fairly broad right of privacy.
 
holy fucking christ. No god damned wonder we're turning in to this bullshit liberal assed police state with so many of you dumb fucking morons promoting the total scrapping of the constitution.

Watermark said:
It never prohibits the states from doing so, or actually the feds either.
Click to expand...
The constitution is a limit on the power and authority of the federal government. If it doesn't enumerate the specific power, it doesn't fucking exist. The 14th Amendment also applies those limits to the states.

Mottleydude said:
Beep! Wrong answer.

Those are specific aspects of privacy. They do not imply an express, across the board, right to privacy. The first, 3rd and 5th amendments also address specific privacy rights too but, again, do not gaurentee a broad express right to privacy.

Modern Jurist interpret that it is the "liberty" guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment that guarantees a fairly broad right of privacy.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment is the Amendment that applies the bill of rights against the states. If 'modern jurist interpretations' are reading that one differently, then we're all pretty much fucked.

Why are people so damned willing to throw away all of their personal rights and freedoms by just allowing the fucking government to tell us what we can and can't do by using the constitution as a limitation on rights, instead of the other damned way?

fucking losers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top