1548
Comments (60)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
17
Vadernocturnus 17 points ago +18 / -1

The right to travel freely, unencumbered is a natural right expressed so necessarily, it need not be mentioned

1858 Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). "For the purposes of this case, we need not identify the source of [the right to travel] in the text of the Constitution. The right of free ingress and regress to and from' neighboring states which was expressly mentioned in the text of the Article of Confederation, may simply have been conceived from the beginning to be a necessary concomitant of the stronger Union the Constitution created."' Id. at 501

“No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.” (Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105)

“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)

Learn your rights, Flex em. Do not give an inch.

1
unashamed 1 point ago +1 / -0

Murdock v PA shines directly upon all these states have “licenses” for purchasing, owning, and bearing firearms. Curious how theses cases hold up today (overridden by subsequent cases).