Gun control debate (merged)

#28,906
#28,906
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, Vol since 77, 85SugarVol and 3 others
#28,908
#28,908
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and hog88
#28,910
#28,910
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#28,911
#28,911
InVOLuntary said:
www.classicfirearms.com

IWI Jericho 941 Semi-Auto Pistol - ENH, 4.4" Barrel, 9mm (2) 16 Round Mags, Black Finish. - J941PL9II

IWI J941PL9II: The Jericho 941 is based on the highly regarded CZ-75 short recoil system, and combines the proven design and function with IWI's exceptionally high standards for reliable performance, accuracy and quality construction. The Jericho features a frame-mounted safety enabling...
www.classicfirearms.com www.classicfirearms.com

@Orangeslice13
Click to expand...
I have 3 versions of the Jericho.
All steel frame.
One in 45 and the other 2 in 9mm
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider and InVOLuntary
#28,915
#28,915
New York's stance banning carrying arms by citizens from other states is in big trouble.

I have mixed feelings on this: 2A vs States' Rights. Read through the complaint last night and believe New York is about to lose.

 
#28,916
#28,916
GroverCleveland said:
New York's stance banning carrying arms by citizens from other states is in big trouble.

I have mixed feelings on this: 2A vs States' Rights. Read through the complaint last night and believe New York is about to lose.

Click to expand...


I don’t have mixed feelings about it whatsoever. If NY state can ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause in regards to gun permits, states can choose to ignore it when it comes to other permits. Either the courts uphold the FF&C clause and force NY to recognize OOS gun permits or they invalidate they invalidate the clause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, 85SugarVol, Orangeslice13 and 1 other person
#28,917
#28,917
hog88 said:
I don’t have mixed feelings about it whatsoever. If NY state can ignore the Full Faith and Credit clause in regards to gun permits, states can choose to ignore it when it comes to other permits. Either the courts uphold the FF&C clause and force NY to recognize OOS gun permits or they invalidate they invalidate the clause.
Click to expand...
You may have misunderstood why I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand, I believe states have the fundamental right to determine their paths. It is, for example, why I always disagreed with Roe. Regardless of how one feels about abortion, it should not be regulated on a Federal level. Not going to rehash my reasoning; have done so before. You're right, either uphold the FF&C clause or invalidate it. And Roe may not be the best example, because abortion is not an enumerated right in the Constitution while the right to keep and bear arms is.

But ignoring the 2A and the FF&C clause is interfering with the rights of citizens beyond the borders of NY state as is pointed out in the suit. So, if I decide to drive to Maine and pretty much have to drive through NY to do so, I have to disarm myself before leaving Tennessee or stop at the border, do a bunch of storage gymnastics, drive through and undo said gymnastics. I am not even sure I'm allowed to stop to spend the night in NY with a handgun in my vehicle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13 and hog88
#28,918
#28,918
GroverCleveland said:
You may have misunderstood why I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand, I believe states have the fundamental right to determine their paths. It is, for example, why I always disagreed with Roe. Regardless of how one feels about abortion, it should not be regulated on a Federal level. Not going to rehash my reasoning; have done so before. You're right, either uphold the FF&C clause or invalidate it. And Roe may not be the best example, because abortion is not an enumerated right in the Constitution while the right to keep and bear arms is.

But ignoring the 2A and the FF&C clause is interfering with the rights of citizens beyond the borders of NY state as is pointed out in the suit. So, R if I decide to drive to Maine and pretty much have to drive through NY to do so, I have to disarm myself before leaving Tennessee or stop at the border, do a bunch of storage gymnastics, drive through and undo said gymnastics. I am not even sure I'm allowed to stop to spend the night in NY with a handgun in my vehicle.
Click to expand...
The difference with  Roe is that abortion is not a Constitutionally-granted right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and davethevol
#28,919
#28,919
GroverCleveland said:
You may have misunderstood why I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand, I believe states have the fundamental right to determine their paths. It is, for example, why I always disagreed with Roe. Regardless of how one feels about abortion, it should not be regulated on a Federal level. Not going to rehash my reasoning; have done so before. You're right, either uphold the FF&C clause or invalidate it. And Roe may not be the best example, because abortion is not an enumerated right in the Constitution while the right to keep and bear arms is.

But ignoring the 2A and the FF&C clause is interfering with the rights of citizens beyond the borders of NY state as is pointed out in the suit. So, if I decide to drive to Maine and pretty much have to drive through NY to do so, I have to disarm myself before leaving Tennessee or stop at the border, do a bunch of storage gymnastics, drive through and undo said gymnastics. I am not even sure I'm allowed to stop to spend the night in NY with a handgun in my vehicle.
Click to expand...

2A only protects citizens from the Federal Govt infringing on your gun rights, it has nothing to do with States. Somewhere along the way, the Bill of Rights was perverted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#28,921
#28,921
volgr said:
The Constitution doesn't grant rights. States granted strictly (or so they thought) enumerated rights to the Federal Govt upon its creation.
Click to expand...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary
#28,922
#28,922
volgr said:
2A only protects citizens from the Federal Govt infringing on your gun rights, it has nothing to do with States. Somewhere along the way, the Bill of Rights was perverted.
Click to expand...
yes it does. states' can't have direct conflicts with the US Constitution. or at least where they do the US Constitution wins out.
 
#28,923
#28,923
LouderVol said:
yes it does. states' can't have direct conflicts with the US Constitution. or at least where they do the US Constitution wins out.
Click to expand...


Yes, thanks for proving you don't know what you are talking about. The Federal Gov't is basically a HOA. The HOA can't grant you rights.
 
#28,924
#28,924
LouderVol said:
yes it does. states' can't have direct conflicts with the US Constitution. or at least where they do the US Constitution wins out.
Click to expand...

Go back and read some history. Ratification debates, Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention, etc. Not until incorporation, which was the perversion point, did anyone think the Federal Bill of Rights was applied to States...which is why every State has THEIR OWN version of a Bill of Rights in their State Constitutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#28,925
#28,925
GroverCleveland said:
You may have misunderstood why I have mixed feelings on it. On the one hand, I believe states have the fundamental right to determine their paths. It is, for example, why I always disagreed with Roe. Regardless of how one feels about abortion, it should not be regulated on a Federal level. Not going to rehash my reasoning; have done so before. You're right, either uphold the FF&C clause or invalidate it. And Roe may not be the best example, because abortion is not an enumerated right in the Constitution while the right to keep and bear arms is.

But ignoring the 2A and the FF&C clause is interfering with the rights of citizens beyond the borders of NY state as is pointed out in the suit. So, if I decide to drive to Maine and pretty much have to drive through NY to do so, I have to disarm myself before leaving Tennessee or stop at the border, do a bunch of storage gymnastics, drive through and undo said gymnastics. I am not even sure I'm allowed to stop to spend the night in NY with a handgun in my vehicle.
Click to expand...

I too fully believe in states having the power/right to chart their own course within the bounds of the constitution. IMO it's akin to the TX border situation, border security and immigration are wholly under the prevue of the federal government so the administration would be well within it's rights to remove any barriers TX put in place and to force the TX NG to stand down. I believe that NY state can regulate it's own permitting process for concealed carry and it's residents have to abide by those laws but NY State cannot (if the FF&C) clause is valid penalize a resident of another state with a valid permit for carrying within NY.

Now for full disclosure, I really would like for the courts to rule that the NY law is in violation of the FF&C clause for reasons outside of carrying a gun. My TN contractors license should be valid within NY or any other state.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol, Orangeslice13 and GroverCleveland
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top