Post
Experience Project iOS Android Apps | Download EP for your Mobile Device
ht tp:/ /ww w.legislature .state. oh. us/bills.cfm?ID=129_SB_305 \"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.\" - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491. Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: \"The State cannot diminish rights of the people.\" Please explain your post. Thanks! PS a \"Hide-A-Key\" box is considered a hidden compartment.
AnarchistPatriot AnarchistPatriot 46-50 2 Answers Nov 23, 2013 in Politics

Your Response

Cancel

"The State cannot diminish rights of the people."<br />
<br />
Remind me why felons can't own firearms again?

Best Answer

The 2nd Amendment. "As spelled out in Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), federal law bans convicted felons from possessing firearms or ammunition. (The U.S.C. is a compilation of congressional laws organized by topic and subtopic: Title 18 defines federal crimes and criminal procedure, and Chapter 44 (Sections 921-931) covers firearms.)" What was that about not infringing upon people's rights?

Best Answer

I'm pointing out that he's using that 'precedent' to defend a secret compartment, when it's clear that the country CAN infringe or reduce rights of the people. I dunno what he's so worried about anyway, unless he's smuggling drugs, weapons, or illegal immigrants, it's not like they'd be looking for a compartment. Even if they suspected drugs they'd get a dog and find them. More importantly, he assumes they'd respect his 'rights'. That's the part i find funniest.

Best Answer

Yes, that as well, but his argument falls apart when you know that all rights have limits. He's trying to use some bastardized inteepretation of the fourth amendment i suppose.

Best Answer

Actually I posted the US Supreme Court decisions. It is not my interpretation of any law. It is theirs.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.
Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516.

Since I am not a lawyer, I posted my question to find out what people think or know.

My question is this: is Ohio's law on secret compartments legal or not? And why.

Legal meaning constitutional and according to the Supreme Court rulings.

Best Answer

yes it's legal, unless it's decided by the federal supreme court that it is unconstitutional. That's how the court system works. if there was an issue it would have been blocked.

Best Answer

See the 9th amendment

Best Answer

You mean the same amendment that was used to deny women and blacks their rights because they 'weren't people'? Great argument.

Best Answer

I do not have any hidden compartment. BUT, if I used a hide-a-key for a spare, that would be included under that law because it 'could' be used to smuggle drugs.

Best Answer

You have it backwards. Our rights need not be specified to have them. See the 9th amendment and even the 10th amendment.

Unless a right is prohibited or regulated by the constitution, you have that right.

IRT the government though, unless the constitution gives them a right, they don't have it.

That is how and why the constitution was written the way it is.

What the government does it will do.

Best Answer

I am not worried about a compartment, but I am worried about the new laws the government passes that try to control the people.

Why punish everyone for what a few do?

If I want a secret compartment to store my wallet in while I go swimming, I should have the right to have one and use it without violating any laws.

Best Answer

Just a side question if I may. What happens when the government makes all or most laws into felonies?
On average people commit 3 felonies per day.

Best Answer

Name the three 'felonies' people commit per day. And don't say interfering with the mail by picking up their neighbors.

Best Answer

Ever forward an email without permission?
Ever copy/paste anything or edit then repost?
Ever tell a lie?
And you mentioned mail.
Ever give an aspirin or tylenol to someone?

There are many.

Best Answer
Best Answer

Arms are considered domestic weapons, not military weapons.
Rule of thumb: if the police can have something then it is a domestic item and the people have the right to those too.

FYI: despite what the government says, our rights were supposed to be absolute, but subject to natural law.

However, this portion of the replies is not related to the topic/question.

Got any thoughts about the topic?

Best Answer
12 More Responses

Related Questions