Florida has started Confication..Good!

[grayfox]

No one that I know of has established a constitutional right to travel by airplane, is this what you imply? If so maybe you can cite the source and we'll all learn something. While there is freedom to travel in general (or so I suppose), and freedom to conduct interstate commerce, it does not follow that taking passage on the plane is a right. For that matter the TSA regulations and the no-fly list have come about because of federal law, so if something is wrong (or allegedly wrong) with that law or those regs, then someone could file suit to challenge them on various grounds. Do you want to do so?

Last time I checked, there's nothing wrong with being troubled on an issue -- I haven't formed a total opinion one way or the other b/c I've not read it yet, otherwise I would have said so. But its implementation as reported does pose some concern for me... I trust that is ok!

Not sure of its impact upon the 2A but it might very well have one.

[stanc]

No one that I know of has established a constitutional right to travel by airplane, is this what you imply?

I'm implying nothing. You stated that "travel upon a privately-held common carrier is not a constitutional right."
Since the Ninth Amendment says the people have rights which are not listed in the Constitution, who determines what is (or is not) one of those unlisted rights?

Last time I checked, there's nothing wrong with being troubled on an issue -- I haven't formed a total opinion one way or the other b/c I've not read it yet, otherwise I would have said so. But its implementation as reported does pose some concern for me... I trust that is ok!

Of course. Nothing wrong with having concerns about any law. I was merely curious if you had read the law itself, since you said you were troubled by it as written.

[grayfox]

A purported "right to fly" has no bearing on the 2A, nor do I feel a need to defend it... honestly with so many people who have faced this ban by being on the list, and no one has attacked it in court much less won, kind of makes my point that it is more than likely not a right. The ACLU would certainly be all over this if it were. However if someone can demonstrate that it is in fact a right, then publish here and forward it on to the lawyers who will have 1,000's more clients, and in addition I'll bow to their wisdom and stand corrected.

Now back to the OP on confiscation without due process...

[stanc]

A purported "right to fly" has no bearing on the 2A, nor do I feel a need to defend it...

Then why did you bring it into the discussion? :confused:

However if someone can demonstrate that it is in fact a right, then publish here and forward it on to the lawyers who will have 1,000's more clients, and in addition I'll bow to their wisdom and stand corrected.

I did not opine either way. You said it is not a Constitutional right. Since the 9th Amendment indicates it could be a right, I'm asking who determined it is not? The government?

Now back to the OP on confiscation without due process...

The OP says nothing about confiscation without due process.

[grayfox]

Montana's post #13, introduced the no-fly list... I was just commenting off of that - ie, imo, it is not a right so it's hard to justify being unconstitutional. Deprivation of a "Bill of Rights" right ("enumerated right") without due process, however, is unconstitutional.
If the right to fly is a right, then I would stand corrected. Hearing crickets, however, I'll keep my statement but only intended in contrast to deprivation of a 2A right...

5th Amdt: "... nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" States must also adhere to this as per the 14th. So deprivation of a 2A right is serious.

Googling "due process" comes up with a few explanations which illustrate what I was trying to say.
Picking a seemingly decent one at random... https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/a...ocess.html

"Due Process is a Constitutional right that comes from the 5th and 14th amendments. The 5th Amendment Due Process Clause applies to the federal government while the 14th Amendment applies to state and local government. The 14th amendment states that no state can "deprive any person of their life, liberty, or property without due process of law". This means that the state cannot deprive you of your basic rights without first allowing you proper legal proceedings such as a trial."

As part of Due Process, "...At least a notice and adequate hearing must be used before any property interest that a person is entitled to is deprived." The Due Process part of the 5th is applied more strenuously, the more fundamental (or "enumerated") the right in question is. Thus, if the Florida law allows forfeiture of 2A (or even 1A) rights without such basics as notice of hearing and the opportunity of the defendant to respond or contest in court, it could well be found unconstitutional, no matter how noble the cause may seem.

Again, not a lawyer and not an expert...

[stanc]

Montana's post #13, introduced the no-fly list... I was just commenting off of that - ie, imo, it is not a right so it's hard to justify being unconstitutional.

You continue to evade the question. Not that I'm surprised, because the answer -- the government determines what are rights, and what are privileges -- goes against the "God given" rights belief.

Deprivation of a "Bill of Rights" right ("enumerated right") without due process, however, is unconstitutional.

Has any legal scholar/authority/judge claimed that the Florida law does not incorporate due process?

[cory]

I'm implying nothing. You stated that "travel upon a privately-held common carrier is not a constitutional right."
Since the Ninth Amendment says the people have rights which are not listed in the Constitution, who determines what is (or is not) one of those unlisted rights?...

They were laid out in the Declaration of Independence in their order of precedence. Rights are finite and begin with the individuals Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Everything we refer to as a Right falls into one of the the categories.

I mean to answer your question.

[stanc]

I'm implying nothing. You stated that "travel upon a privately-held common carrier is not a constitutional right."
Since the Ninth Amendment says the people have rights which are not listed in the Constitution, who determines what is (or is not) one of those unlisted rights?

They were laid out in the Declaration of Independence in their order of precedence. Rights are finite and begin with the individuals Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Everything we refer to as a Right falls into one of the the categories.

1. The Declaration of Independence does not say that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness are "categories" of rights. It lists them as examples of rights.
2. The Declaration of Independence does not say that rights are "finite." Both it and the 9th Amendment indicate there could be an infinite number of rights.

I mean to answer your question.

Please do.

[montana]

Montana's post #13, introduced the no-fly list... I was just commenting off of that - ie, imo, it is not a right so it's hard to justify being unconstitutional. Deprivation of a "Bill of Rights" right ("enumerated right") without due process, however, is unconstitutional.
If the right to fly is a right, then I would stand corrected. Hearing crickets, however, I'll keep my statement but only intended in contrast to deprivation of a 2A right...

Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

There are, however, a number of other safety and homeland-security-related issues covered in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in the 1540 series that could impede movement, such as a passenger's name appearing on a "no fly" or "selectee" list. Regardless of the constitutionality of laws passed post-9/11 with respect to freedom of movement being a privilege, all U.S. citizens have the right to travel or move within and between the 50 states without the requirement of submitting to a search of one's person or property prior to travel or movement.

The government puts people on the no fly "selectee" list, not the private carriers. Without due process, it is unconstitutional. Like the 2ndA, our other rights are always being tested and abused.

[cory]

1. The Declaration of Independence does not say that Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness are "categories" of rights. It lists them as examples of rights.
2. The Declaration of Independence does not say that rights are "finite." Both it and the 9th Amendment indicate there could be an infinite number of rights.


Please do.

That post modern theory is wrong.

Forget the lawyer bs and think about it from a logical perspective. Rights are much like energy as they can not be created nor destroyed.

Let's assume I'm right, perform any logical experiment you like and you'll it works in a beautifully simplistic fashion.

It also must be understood that your Right to Life is your Right to property as your Life is your first property.

Once you understand this you can then begin to understand our Constitution and our Founders intention when writing the Constitution.

[grayfox]

Current US Code addresses air travel specifically. In 49 U.S.C. § 40103, "Sovereignty and use of airspace", the Code specifies that "A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."

There are, however, a number of other safety and homeland-security-related issues covered in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 449 and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations in the 1540 series that could impede movement, such as a passenger's name appearing on a "no fly" or "selectee" list. Regardless of the constitutionality of laws passed post-9/11 with respect to freedom of movement being a privilege, all U.S. citizens have the right to travel or move within and between the 50 states without the requirement of submitting to a search of one's person or property prior to travel or movement.

The government puts people on the no fly "selectee" list, not the private carriers. Without due process, it is unconstitutional. Like the 2ndA, our other rights are always being tested and abused.

This is a new one for me. Thanks for posting. It needs some pondering...
One question that would arise is, this right of "passage thru navigable airspace" then is a right or set of rights that seems to be enacted by federal law, so is it different in its essence from those in the BofR? Don't know the answer here, just asking. I also wonder what the Courts have said in regard to it...

[montana]

This is a new one for me. Thanks for posting. It needs some pondering...
One question that would arise is, this right of "passage thru navigable airspace" then is a right or set of rights that seems to be enacted by federal law, so is it different in its essence from those in the BofR? Don't know the answer here, just asking. I also wonder what the Courts have said in regard to it...

The 5thA is quite clear on this subject.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger.

If a person has not been accused of any crime, they can still be put on a no fly list. In fact there is no easy or standard way to get off the list.
https://www.cnet.com/news/theres-no-gett...-fly-list/
Being able to know your accuser and having a direct way to defend yourself is the foundation of our Republic. This is clearly unconstitutional.

[stanc]

That post modern theory is wrong.
Forget the lawyer bs and think about it from a logical perspective. Rights are much like energy as they can not be created nor destroyed.
Let's assume I'm right, perform any logical experiment you like and you'll it works in a beautifully simplistic fashion.
It also must be understood that your Right to Life is your Right to property as your Life is your first property.
Once you understand this you can then begin to understand our Constitution and our Founders intention when writing the Constitution.

a. I've no idea what "post modern theory" you're talking about.
b. There is no "lawyer bs" in my previous post. Only facts.
c. I am thinking about it "from a logical perspective."
d. "Rights" are nothing like energy. Energy exists independent of mankind. "Rights" exist only in the human mind.
e. It would be illogical to assume you are right, when you are logically and factually wrong.

The Founders' intent in writing the Constitution was to create a blueprint for government.

The Founders' intent in writing the Declaration of Independence was to create propaganda meant to try to prevent other European monarchies from viewing the rebellion as a threat to their own rule, and then deciding to help Britain in fighting the Americans. (The Founders didn't actually believe that stuff about all people being equal and having "rights" to life, liberty, etc.)

What is ironic is that the American Revolution actually did provide inspiration for the French people to rebel against their king. I imagine King George was rolling on the floor in laughter when Louis XVI was overthrown and executed. The French monarchy screwed up royally (Pun intended. ) in coming to the aid of the Americans, and they paid for that mistake with their lives.

As for the question of who determines what are our "rights," the answer is clearly: The government. Not God. Not Nature. The government.

And before you indulge in knee-jerk protest, note that it was members of the government who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

It was also the government that proclaimed driving on public roads and flying on airliners are privileges, not rights.

[montana]

You continue to evade the question. Not that I'm surprised, because the answer -- the government determines what are rights, and what are privileges -- goes against the "God given" rights belief.

In a nut shell, those with the guns "power" determine what are rights and privileges. The 2ndA has always been about division of power, as the 3 branches of government our founders created. So, are you saying the 2ndA is a right "power" given to the people to counter government power or is it the governments right of power over the people? I have given endless evidence, "from the very people who wrote the 2ndA", clearly stating the 2ndA is the citizens, "God given or natural right" and you have contested that belief. So which is it, citizen or government "power". It has to be one or the other!

[grayfox]

I don't think Stan is willing to acknowledge the existence nor the authority of God (to grant anything), so this may be a point in which there will need to be willingness to agree to disagree.

[montana]

I don't think Stan is willing to acknowledge the existence nor the authority of God (to grant anything), so this may be a point in which there will need to be willingness to agree to disagree.

To believe or disbelieve in a higher force does not change the fact that a "belief" can be very powerful. A belief in government or God is the same from an academic stand point. It only works, "if the people who follow it" have belief in it. The people sitting in a government building giving dictates is no different than the people giving dictates from a church. It only works if the people believe in the dictates being given.

[stanc]

I don't think Stan is willing to acknowledge the existence nor the authority of God (to grant anything)...

I am willing to acknowledge that God has given us rights...….as soon as someone links to any document(s) proven to have been written by God, in which he specifies said rights.

[stanc]

In a nut shell, those with the guns "power" determine what are rights and privileges.

Not exactly. Just possessing guns does not equate to having the power to determine what are rights and privileges.
IIRC, private citizens own more small arms than all government agencies combined, but it is the government that determines and defines our legal rights and privileges.

The 2ndA has always been about division of power, as the 3 branches of government our founders created. So, are you saying the 2ndA is a right "power" given to the people to counter government power or is it the governments right of power over the people?

Pretty much the latter. As written, it seems clear that the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that organized State militias had access to military small arms.
There is nothing in the Amendment which says it was to counter government power. Quite the opposite, actually. The sole purpose noted for militias is state security.
And the Constitution contains provision for calling out the militia to suppress insurrections, but nothing whatsoever about using the militia to conduct insurrections.

I have given endless evidence, "from the very people who wrote the 2ndA", clearly stating the 2ndA is the citizens, "God given or natural right" and you have contested that belief.

Yup. That's because:

1. I've yet to see anyone provide proof that God has given us any rights, let alone specified what those rights are. If you can give such proof, please do.
2. As for so-called "natural rights," the only "right" that I see in nature is the right of living beings to do whatever they have the ability and desire to do.

[cory]

The Founders' intent in writing the Constitution was to create a blueprint for government.

Almost correct. The Founders' intent was to create a government to only the extent necessary so that society could exist. Society without rules and regulations is just a mob. The mob is a direct threat to the Individual's Rights. Therefore we created a necessary evil, i.e. government, to protect the Rights of the Individual.

d. "Rights" are nothing like energy. Energy exists independent of mankind. "Rights" exist only in the human mind.

I take it you don't believe in Freewill.

e. It would be illogical to assume you are right, when you are logically and factually wrong.

If you can't extend enough goodwill to perform a simple intellectual exercise, then any attempt at a conversation with you is a waste of time.

The Founders' intent in writing the Declaration of Independence was to create propaganda meant to try to prevent other European monarchies from viewing the rebellion as a threat to their own rule, and then deciding to help Britain in fighting the Americans. (The Founders didn't actually believe that stuff about all people being equal and having "rights" to life, liberty, etc.)

You've never actually read Washington's or Jefferson's thoughts on slavery have you? As a young idealist politician Jefferson actually fought against slavery. Washington wanted to move from a slave labor to a paid labor business model. Why didn't they just free their slaves and set an example? The colonial laws on inheritance made this very complicated and almost impossible.

Whether the Declaration of Independence was propaganda is irrelevant. It's still the ideas on which this country was founded. Period! Whether we've lived up to them is a different story.

As for the question of who determines what are our "rights," the answer is clearly: The government. Not God. Not Nature. The government.

The government's Rights come from the Individual, not the other way around. Hence the Constitution's Preamble.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It is from the Individual that the government derives its Rights (power). As such unless explicitly allocated to the government in the Constitution all Rights are maintained by the Individual.

And before you indulge in knee-jerk protest, note that it was members of the government who wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.

What the hell does that have to do with anything. Either the ideas are correct or they're not. Who it comes from is irrelevant.

It was also the government that proclaimed driving on public roads and flying on airliners are privileges, not rights.

They're wrong, but not completely.

In order to understand this we have to understand a couple of things. What is government? It's the people. We, Americans, are the U.S. government. Therefore everything the government owns, we the American taxpayers own. And hence our first Right of Life (Property) extends to US property.

It's much like owning stock in a company. I own small amounts of stock in many different company's. Therefore I have ownership in everything those companies owns, it's my property. However, I only own a small fraction of ownership in that property. Therefore, I can not do whatever I want in or with the company like I could with a piece of land that I own outright. I must operate within the rules set fourth by the company.

This same is true for Public Roads and Airports. I, like other Americans, own and have Rights to it. However, I only own a small fraction, so I must operate within the rules set by the collective (government).

[montana]

Not exactly. Just possessing guns does not equate to having the power to determine what are rights and privileges.
IIRC, private citizens own more small arms than all government agencies combined, but it is the government that determines and defines our legal rights and privileges.

Yes, until there is a red line that the people will not cross, obey or respect. This is where I stated the power of belief comes into play.

Pretty much the latter. As written, it seems clear that the Second Amendment was intended to ensure that organized State militias had access to military small arms.
There is nothing in the Amendment which says it was to counter government power. Quite the opposite, actually. The sole purpose noted for militias is state security.
And the Constitution contains provision for calling out the militia to suppress insurrections, but nothing whatsoever about using the militia to conduct insurrections.

This is where we will agree to disagree.

Yup. That's because:

1. I've yet to see anyone provide proof that God has given us any rights, let alone specified what those rights are. If you can give such proof, please do.
2. As for so-called "natural rights," the only "right" that I see in nature is the right of living beings to do whatever they have the ability and desire to do.

1. This is where the discussion between the religion of intelligent design or atheism occurs, which is not appropriate for this forum. Our founders did believe:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their "Creator" with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They plainly expressed that all rights come from a creator,not the state as to be self-evident.
in·al·ien·a·ble
inˈālēənəb(əl/
adjective
adjective: inalienableunable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.
2. I agree, but there are many other natural rights like the need for self defense, learning, understanding, discovery, family, caring, survival, etc.