Paintball laws in RI

[Lohman446]

I should have clairified myself, I am referring to _federal_ laws. I believe in states doing whatever they want provided it does not violate what the constitution set out.

So.. wheres the problem with this bill before the Rhode Island legislature (aside from horrible wording)?

[OneEyedPimp]

So.. wheres the problem with this bill before the Rhode Island legislature (aside from horrible wording)?

I personally believe that this violates the 2nd and 9th amendments. While the state has ultimate power in the United States, they still must protect peoples right to life, liberty, property, and the persuit of happiness. The passage of this law violates the libery, happiness, and property part of that.

[Lohman446]

I personally believe that this violates the 2nd and 9th amendments. While the state has ultimate power in the United States, they still must protect peoples right to life, liberty, property, and the persuit of happiness. The passage of this law violates the libery, happiness, and property part of that.

How? In order to make the argument on the second amendment one would have to portray paintball markers as built as the intent of being "arms" they are not built with the intent of being a weapon. I think at that point your second amendment argument is gone, and it was thin to start with. Placing a burden on ownership is not the same as banning ownership and the burden placed is neither excessive or undo. So, you would have to first overcome the burden that a paintball marker is intended as a weapon (and then state dueling laws become interesting) and then convince one of the argument that any burden placed on ownership represents a violation of your right to "keep and bear"... I don't think you can.

The 9th amendment is vague. This does not place an undo burden on the sport. There is no severity to the burden, its mild at most. It does not restrict ones liberty unjustly, it does not violate ones right to own property, and how it violates your right to happiness? I don't recall that being a right. You have the right to pursue happiness, though that was not even an enumerated right in the "Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms" (prior to the Decleration of Independence). Your right to be gaurenteed happiness does not exist.

[OneEyedPimp]

How? In order to make the argument on the second amendment one would have to portray paintball markers as built as the intent of being "arms" they are not built with the intent of being a weapon. I think at that point your second amendment argument is gone, and it was thin to start with. Placing a burden on ownership is not the same as banning ownership and the burden placed is neither excessive or undo. So, you would have to first overcome the burden that a paintball marker is intended as a weapon (and then state dueling laws become interesting) and then convince one of the argument that any burden placed on ownership represents a violation of your right to "keep and bear"... I don't think you can.

My point for the second is _if_ the law is passed. And in my opinion the burden is undue, but to each his own.

The 9th amendment is vague. This does not place an undo burden on the sport. There is no severity to the burden, its mild at most. It does not restrict ones liberty unjustly, it does not violate ones right to own property, and how it violates your right to happiness? I don't recall that being a right. You have the right to pursue happiness, though that was not even an enumerated right in the "Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms" (prior to the Decleration of Independence). Your right to be gaurenteed happiness does not exist.

Does it being vague change the fact that it is still there?

The amount of the burden is from the beholder. You may think that these regulations are trivial at best, but someone else, like myself, may think that they are beyond the boundries of the state/government to pass.

It does restrict ones liberty because it requires the person to give up time in order to use the property that he has bought. If he doesn't, he can not use the property. As for happiness, I never said you were guarenteed that, just that you were guarenteed the "pursuit" of it. By doing this they are impeding certain peoples "pursuit" of happiness. While it may not be all people feel that these regulations are unjust, if even a small percentage of them cannot play the sport because of this("pursuit of happiness") then I, personally, do not believe this law should go through. The minority should not be told what to do by the whims of the majority.

I would have nothing wrong with this law if the "requirements" laid out by it were optional, it is just the mandatory part that I have a problem with. However, if that law was made to be optional and then passed, then all paintguns in the beautiful state of Rhode Island whould be protected under the second amendment. Therefore regulation of them whould be out of the question. After all we don't want to "infringe" on the second, do we?

[Lohman446]

Interesting thought on the second but you have not overcome the idea that a paintball marker is not protected by it because in its design and designed use it is never intended to be a weapon, thus does not fall under the right to keep and bear arms, because it is not an arm.

As to the ninth. It depends what unenumerated rights we are discussing. Has there ever been a challenge considered by the Supreme Court based on the ninth amendment? I have no idea. That being said one could claim unconsidered "rights" all they wanted under the ninth. It does not deprive any consenting adult from the right to own property, nowhere is that right promised unconditionally. As to the interference with the pursuit of happiness. I think if that minor inconvenience, done for the welfare of the collective, keeps you from pursuing happiness you need to find a shrink. Liberty... not a chance on deprivation of. Some considerations of of course, but you don't have the liberty to go shoot someone either and I'm pretty certain we don't debate that.

Nowhere did the founding fathers acknowledge ethical hedonism as the "goal" of the nation. Although I can prescribe to it as an ideal, I cannot assign it as a requirement of the state.

The further argument can be made that the state has the full rights to regulate its own roadways and the travel on it.. You hold the right to travel, you do not hold the right to drive to travel.

States rights reach a lot further than the Federal governments (or are supposed to). One could almost make an argument that this law was in violation if Federal law (except the dreaded interstate commerce catch all), but you still have not come up with a convincing argument that paintball markers (at least there transport and sale) cannot be regulated by the state.

[OneEyedPimp]

Interesting thought on the second but you have not overcome the idea that a paintball marker is not protected by it because in its design and designed use it is never intended to be a weapon, thus does not fall under the right to keep and bear arms, because it is not an arm.

It doesnt have to have that purpose in design if it is designated a weapon by law. Hence, if this law passes, it is a weapon in RI and hence protected by the second amendment.

As to the ninth. It depends what unenumerated rights we are discussing. Has there ever been a challenge considered by the Supreme Court based on the ninth amendment? I have no idea. That being said one could claim unconsidered "rights" all they wanted under the ninth. It does not deprive any consenting adult from the right to own property, nowhere is that right promised unconditionally. As to the interference with the pursuit of happiness. I think if that minor inconvenience, done for the welfare of the collective, keeps you from pursuing happiness you need to find a shrink. Liberty... not a chance on deprivation of. Some considerations of of course, but you don't have the liberty to go shoot someone either and I'm pretty certain we don't debate that.

My personal belief(taken from my interpretation of the constitution): that any government regulation of anything is wrong. I believe this because I hold that it is violating a persons, or companies, right to free trade. The ninth amendment is such a broad amendment that it doesnt have to support individual "unenumerated rights." It essentially protects a consenting adult from doing what they please with their property provided it only affects them.

I never said this "inconvience" was one huge one, not worthy of passage. All I am trying to imply is that any regulation is only followed by further regulation. If they can establish that it is not yours to do with as you please(as they are doing here) then they will eventually regulate every aspect of the sale, transportation, and storage of such items. Firearms have seen this downhill spiral since the mid-thirties.

Nowhere did the founding fathers acknowledge ethical hedonism as the "goal" of the nation. Although I can prescribe to it as an ideal, I cannot assign it as a requirement of the state.

True, but, the state cannot tell consenting adults what they can and can't do with their property.

The further argument can be made that the state has the full rights to regulate its own roadways and the travel on it.. You hold the right to travel, you do not hold the right to drive to travel.

However, the state can, and does, build roadways where they see fit (so long they get approval from their representatives). They spend stolen money (taxes) on said roadways without consulting all of the contributers to see if it is all right that they build it there. It is a pretty simple equation: those who want it built pay for it and can ride on it, those who do not, do not pay for it and either have to pay a fee to ride on it or simply are not allowed to.

States rights reach a lot further than the Federal governments (or are supposed to). One could almost make an argument that this law was in violation if Federal law (except the dreaded interstate commerce catch all), but you still have not come up with a convincing argument that paintball markers (at least there transport and sale) cannot be regulated by the state.

It is just my interpretation of the constitution that leads me to believe that _any_ regulation by the state of any thing is a violation of free will, in some instances, and commerce, in most cases. While you may not agree with that, you still do not have the right to tell me that my child has to take a course to prove that he is able to handle a paintgun. I would not have a problem at all with it if a paintball park asked that all players had to take such course before they could play on their firld, but it is not the right of the government to make that descision for both the parents and the field owners.

While I may not be able to prove the specific right they are violating in the regulation of their paintguns, you still have yet to prove that the state has the right to regulate it at all.

[Lohman446]

My personal belief(taken from my interpretation of the constitution): that any government regulation of anything is wrong. I believe this because I hold that it is violating a persons, or companies, right to free trade. The ninth amendment is such a broad amendment that it doesnt have to support individual "unenumerated rights." It essentially protects a consenting adult from doing what they please with their property provided it only affects them.

I never said this "inconvience" was one huge one, not worthy of passage. All I am trying to imply is that any regulation is only followed by further regulation. If they can establish that it is not yours to do with as you please(as they are doing here) then they will eventually regulate every aspect of the sale, transportation, and storage of such items. Firearms have seen this downhill spiral since the mid-thirties.



True, but, the state cannot tell consenting adults what they can and can't do with their property.



However, the state can, and does, build roadways where they see fit (so long they get approval from their representatives). They spend stolen money (taxes) on said roadways without consulting all of the contributers to see if it is all right that they build it there. It is a pretty simple equation: those who want it built pay for it and can ride on it, those who do not, do not pay for it and either have to pay a fee to ride on it or simply are not allowed to.



It is just my interpretation of the constitution that leads me to believe that _any_ regulation by the state of any thing is a violation of free will, in some instances, and commerce, in most cases. While you may not agree with that, you still do not have the right to tell me that my child has to take a course to prove that he is able to handle a paintgun. I would not have a problem at all with it if a paintball park asked that all players had to take such course before they could play on their firld, but it is not the right of the government to make that descision for both the parents and the field owners.

While I may not be able to prove the specific right they are violating in the regulation of their paintguns, you still have yet to prove that the state has the right to regulate it at all.

The moral right of a body of legislatures holding power through a democratic process an enacting laws? Short of anarchy, or full unrepresented democracy (which rapidly becomes the same) what other form of government would you suggest?

The course part of it to me is almost an afterthought. I suggested earlier that a form acknowledging dangers may be more appropriate. The transportation part of it.. most definetly.

As to public moneys funding toll roads? I dont think so. Public dollars pay for them and *allow* public use, subject to proper regulation by the government.

I don't disagree with your idea of ethical hedonism, but your now trying to tell me its protected by the Constitution, and even found through interpertation. Again I ask where?

The state has a right to regulate. Through the power of the people that voted them into office they obtain the right to govern. Once that right is obtained, the laws passed, unless proven unlawful in themselves, hold power over individuals as a governing of the collective, by the collective.

[slade]

ahh! i was up until 2:30 this morning writing a philosophy paper and i have a test on rousseau first thing tomorrow morning i hate you guys.

[OneEyedPimp]

The moral right of a body of legislatures holding power through a democratic process an enacting laws? Short of anarchy, or full unrepresented democracy (which rapidly becomes the same) what other form of government would you suggest?

I have no problem with our form of government. I just think it should be run like a business. It sells the "products" to the people. The people don't have to use them. The government runs off of donations, or fees to use roads built by them, and private companies make up the slack. I honestly like this form better, and I believe that it is a much better equation for todays world. The united states worked in a similiar fashion in thimes of peace like this at one point. (I believe)

The course part of it to me is almost an afterthought. I suggested earlier that a form acknowledging dangers may be more appropriate. The transportation part of it.. most definetly.

As to public moneys funding toll roads? I dont think so. Public dollars pay for them and *allow* public use, subject to proper regulation by the government.

Now that is not what I said. I said people who want the road, fund it. Those who don't either don't get to use it or have to pay a fee to use it. Either way, the use and building of such highways/freeways is completely optional and requires no taxes.

I don't disagree with your idea of ethical hedonism, but your now trying to tell me its protected by the Constitution, and even found through interpertation. Again I ask where?

Honestly, I find it completly supported under the 9th amendment. While the 9th, and any other amendment, doesnt specifically prohibit the regulation of X products the regulation is prohibited by the fact that it does violate the peoples right to free commerce.

The state has a right to regulate. Through the power of the people that voted them into office they obtain the right to govern. Once that right is obtained, the laws passed, unless proven unlawful in themselves, hold power over individuals as a governing of the collective, by the collective.

Honestly I have seen no proof that a state has a "right" to regulate. When we elect state governments we are electing them under the premise that they will stay within the confines of their constitution. The same applies to the federal government. When they step outside those boundries, they are supposed to be impeached. We just never impeach them...

[Lohman446]

Honestly, I find it completly supported under the 9th amendment. While the 9th, and any other amendment, doesnt specifically prohibit the regulation of X products the regulation is prohibited by the fact that it does violate the peoples right to free commerce.

Do we go with a strict interpertation of the 9th amendment as it is written, or are we going to go of an interpertive beleif and try to read into what was actually meant in the vague wording by looking at such things as the federalist papers? Or do we accept it as a living document and subject it to consideration from todays views?

I don't see free commerce promised under the Constitution, in fact regulation of interstate commerce is a specific enumerated power of the federal government.

[OneEyedPimp]

Do we go with a strict interpertation of the 9th amendment as it is written, or are we going to go of an interpertive beleif and try to read into what was actually meant in the vague wording by looking at such things as the federalist papers? Or do we accept it as a living document and subject it to consideration from todays views?

I do not believe that I am reading into it. If you were not insinuating that, then I believe that we do a blening of the first two that you mentioned. We must realize that it is there and not open for much interpretation. We also must look at the federalist papers to gain instight into how they wanted it to be interpreted.

I don't see free commerce promised under the Constitution, in fact regulation of interstate commerce is a specific enumerated power of the federal government.

Suppose you got me there. That was a rather bad argument. However, the regulation of "commerce" is not defined in Article 1, Section 8. The interpretation that I take it as being is that it is the amount of goods that is traded or the tarriffs placed on said goods. What it does not lay out, and what I was trying to get across, is that the state has the right to say what can and cant be traded. Furthermore, what can and cant be done with the goods after they are bought.