No you just need to do your part and not run. I'm an open Objectivist

and you get a thumbs up.

Number One never say 'it seems to me' it casts you as one of the dark side from Atlas Shrugged.

OK Void for Vagueness applies in any jurisdiction that has a law that cannot be understood by the average citizen. Something Pelosillyni would write.or say for example.

But it only applies with that jurisdiction.

We'll use states as an example.

Each of the fifty states in the situation described have the right, given to them by their own citizens to write a certain type of law. the result is fifty different laws all legal and none Vague but if taken as a whole that situation probably would arise. .It won't because the Federal Government has no rights granted.beyond military formations and the Supreme Court ruling that self defense is not excluded. Why not. The federal government has no rights granted

Within any of the states one set of those laws may qualify but only within that one single state.

The bonus is the Supreme Court made the use of individually owned by citizens weapons bullet proof by excluding the federal government from the first phrase and up holding rights not granted.

Justice is served with a bonus and dessert.

As for the other 49 states? Cross the line their laws apply not those of your home state.

The fact that you have a weapon registered and licensed or whatever comes under full faith and credit since as a nation self defense is a right retained by citizens, not granted and it's been reviewed and upheld by SCOTUS. It does not give you license to break laws of other states.

Does it apply in the other states? Depends on agreements between states.

Opinions of failed ham'n'egger shysters not with standing.

No vagueness no mess no mish mash - except at the federal level where all is liver mush.

ConLaw and State Laws was a required subject in police academy. The answer was written. We also did State/local and International law. If one over riding law were applied it would require Federal carry permits.

That's where I got the idea.

Sure anything can be turned around but first you have to identify Group III participants.

Group I Righteous
Group II Debaters

That's the couch potato groups. One is interested in preaching be they secular or religious the other in debating not matter which side not for converts but for points.

Group III those who get off their ass and fix the problem then go on to something else While Group I and Group II ever the my way or the highway purists are still stuck in the mud and mire.

Bear in mind after Group I and Group II AFTER Group III has fixed the problem will up to preach and debate how it was done and to take credit.

Once identified I just shine them on. That's the groups AR was referring to when she said turn your back and walk away.

How does the 14th apply. What citizen rights are violated by upholding their rights? Where in the Constitution is the 'Void For Vagueness Doctrine. That's meaningless. What do you consider vague." Fifty states with fifty different positions? Nothing vague about rights not granted do not exist. It applies to states as well as the federal level. You will have to explain all of that with cites and sources. That's the frame. Your claim your job to support it.

Actually I know the answer I've used that myself to toss 52 of 53 counts in a jury trial. I just want to see if you know and by the way it's 5th and 14th amendments. Remember Rand if a contradiction check your premises... so far one of yours ...is....incorrect or at least not sufficiently supported.

setting forth the regulations....

thanks for the assist I should have pounded that point as well.

The Principle is Government has NO rights unless specifically granted in detail. Given the dumbed down population versus the apparant superior literacy of the 1700s that point needs mentioning ....and often.

Wrong. It is the principle of rights not granted that would be and is being violated. The Federal Governments rights stop with the second amendment and it's applications which they have defined (the court) as the right to carry for self protection and the right to have state militias. The only right the feds have is setting for the regulations for any military and the right to federalize in exchange for the cost of equipping. The rest is none of their business. 9th and 10th amendments rule the feds may NOT imagine that which is not clearly granted and may NOT legally ignore the Constitution.

Which means they have usurped it and we're no longer under the Constitution

Which means the military's oath of office is the next step. Martial law and courts martial for all violaters...starting with the President.

You can cherry pick all you want but it's only wishful thinking not fact.

The State Laws are not collective they are separate intentionally.

Where did you find that Principle of law? google didn't help me and it certainly doesn't apply else why have lawyers?

Always look for the Constitutional authorization and always start with the 9th and 10th amendments. Rights not granted do not exist and the Supreme Court not visiting whatever portion is not an excuse to violate that rule. It's a crime.