Shooting at Oregon Community College
- Thread starter FrigidFTSup
- Start date
moreluck
golden ticket member
How old is that print out ?? Many states don't require parental permission....like Ca. and Alaska......there's more, see site below... Get current .
http://parentingteens.about.com/od/teenpregfact/a/abortion_laws.htm
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
I'm not advocating for more waiting time to purchase firearms.
Just find it hypocritical that conservatives continue to make woman jump through hoops to get their Constitutional right to abortion while fighting all restrictions on ones Constitutional right to bear arms.
oldngray
nowhere special
Where is the Constitution does it say there is a right to abortion? Not the same as guns at all.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Abortion
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Roe v. Wade granted woman the Constitutional Right to terminate their pregnancy.
Abortion.—In Roe v. Wade,557 the Court established a right of personal privacy protected by the due process clause that includes the right of a woman to determine whether or not to bear a child. In doing so, the Court dramatically increased judicial oversight of legislation under the privacy line of cases, striking down aspects of abortion-related laws in practically all the States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. To reach this result, the Court first undertook a lengthy historical review of medical and legal views regarding abortion, finding that modern prohibitions on abortion were of relatively recent vintage and thus lacked the historical foundation which might have preserved them from constitutional review.558 Then, the Court established that the word "person" as used in the due process clause and in other provisions of the Constitution did not include the unborn, and therefore the unborn lacked federal constitutional protection.559 Finally, the Court summarily announced that the "Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action" includes "a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy"560 and that "[t]his right of privacy . . . is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
Roe v. Wade granted woman the Constitutional Right to terminate their pregnancy.
BakerMayfield2018
Fight the power.
That was a court case. It's not in the constitution. Big difference
oldngray
nowhere special
That was a court case and not in the Constitution.The court could change its opinion about that at any time.
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Problem with that argument is that if gun free zones work, there's nothing to hear about.
No sense in playing that game with anti-gun people. It's either a constitutionally protected right or it isn't.
If you think these types of laws are unjust the simple solution is to disobey them.
Sportello
Well-Known Member
Who is they?
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
Its not a problem I personally have to deal with, because I have a concealed carry permit and in Oregon you can carry pretty much anywhere you want to with one. Businesses are still free to put up "no guns allowed" signs but the signs do not have the force of law and you aren't breaking the law by ignoring them. You can even carry in schools with a permit. Only Federal buildings are off-limits, or county courthouses with signs and metal detectors to walk thru.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
If someone makes the choice to participate in the gun free zone concept by going to those places and not arming themselves.... why should the owner of that establishment be held liable when something bad happens? No one made them go there and no one made them obey a sign.
Well according to the laws, carrying in a school is against the law. And if you go to school and someone shoots it up, the school should be liable, negligent homicide...
If a school (or other) wants to have a gun free zone then there should be a law requirng them to make sure it remains gun free and offer adequate protection to those who enter. If the school (or other) doesn't want to take on that responsibility then the gun free zone ceases to exist and the existing state laws concerning CC would be in effect.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Or you could just not go there or ignore the sign. Thought we didn't need any new laws.
bottomups
Bad Moon Risen'
Imagine a fully loaded Boeing 747 with 500 people aboard, all packing their firearms because the law says the airlines cannot restrict concealed carry. Somehow I don't think that would turn out to well.
Similar threads
