Gun control debate (merged)

[hog88]

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.

For once Volgr is correct. Government at any level cannot grant rights, they can only restrict them.

 

[InVOLuntary]

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.

What if the state is constitutional carry?

 

[hog88]

What if the state is constitutional carry?

Good question, one that I don't have an answer to.

 

[volgr]

For once Volgr is correct. Government at any level cannot grant rights, they can only restrict them.

You agree with me on other issues, you just don't know it yet.

 

[InVOLuntary]

Good question, one that I don't have an answer to.

I'm one to believe that it's unconstitutional to have to get permission from the government to exercise a constitutional right.

 

[GroverCleveland]

The difference with  Roe is that abortion is not a Constitutionally-granted right.

Thought I said that.

 

[LouderVol]

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.

Neither can the state under that argument. the states would be the individual home owners. the constitutions are all limitations on government, the US constitution applies to all governments in the US. state constitutions apply to that state and any local governments.

please show me any where a state got away with something directly against the US Constitution?

 

[hog88]

I'm one to believe that it's unconstitutional to have to get permission from the government to exercise a constitutional right.

I agree with that position but I believe that states do have some rights to regulate within their borders and with their residents.

 

[GroverCleveland]

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.

While I wholeheartedly agree with this and the sentiments encased in Barron v. Baltimore and United States v. Cruikshank, the reality is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment has been used beginning in the 1920s to apply the BoR to the states.

 

[hog88]

Neither can the state under that argument. the states would be the individual home owners. the constitutions are all limitations on government, the US constitution applies to all governments in the US. state constitutions apply to that state and any local governments.

please show me any where a state got away with something directly against the US Constitution?

They haven't since Lincoln. Volgr does have precedent pre-civil war but not since.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Neither can the state under that argument. the states would be the individual home owners. the constitutions are all limitations on government, the US constitution applies to all governments in the US. state constitutions apply to that state and any local governments.

please show me any where a state got away with something directly against the US Constitution?

When the Constitution was ratified, many of the states had laws establishing religious practices, for instance requiring church attendance on Sundays. Most of these were repealed by the early 1800s, but apparently no one at the time thought much about it. Not like today, where such a proposition would engender much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair.

 

[GroverCleveland]

It is going to be amusing if/when NY argues in favor of states' rights.

 

[hndog609]

Not sure why this post isn't being recognized. Article VI is pretty clear about top down Constitutional supremacy.

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.

Now the topic gets more muddied downstream of that fact. For instance the idea of simply saying "You can't have guns in our state." isn't going to make it past the 2A. Several limitations (we'll call them hoops) have stood up in the courts under State's rights. The very idea of requiring a permit to carry in public for instance is a hoop. Where one can carry even with a permit is another hoop and so on. The top down part works in that the 2A explicitly protects (which is not the same thing as grants) the RTKABA. It's been long upheld in the courts that States do have some discretion in certain aspects of how the 2A is implemented as long as such doesn't run afoul of what has been set forth there.

 

[Jxn Vol]

I agree with that position but I believe that states do have some rights to regulate within their borders and with their residents.

Any law a state passes that infringes on 2A is unconstitutional. That is why I carried even though I didn’t have a permit. I kept a pocket Constitution. That’s all I needed.

We have gotten so far away from the founders intentions that it’s sad.

 

[hog88]

Any law a state passes that infringes on 2A is unconstitutional. That is why I carried even though I didn’t have a permit. I kept a pocket Constitution. That’s all I needed.

We have gotten so far away from the founders intentions that it’s sad.

If you have a run in with a cop let us know how that pocket constitution works for ya.

 

[volgr]

When the Constitution was ratified, many of the states had laws establishing religious practices, for instance requiring church attendance on Sundays. Most of these were repealed by the early 1800s, but apparently no one at the time thought much about it. Not like today, where such a proposition would engender much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair.

Yes, a couple of States still had an official church of that State, which flew in the face of the 1st Amendment but everyone at that time understood the Federal Bill of Rights did not apply to States. This later changed when it was perverted through incorporation.

If NY wants to ban guns, why would another State care? Why is it their business? Welcome to a Republic.

 

[volgr]

Not sure why this post isn't being recognized. Article VI is pretty clear about top down Constitutional supremacy.

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.

Now the topic gets more muddied downstream of that fact. For instance the idea of simply saying "You can't have guns in our state." isn't going to make it past the 2A. Several limitations (we'll call them hoops) have stood up in the courts under State's rights. The very idea of requiring a permit to carry in public for instance is a hoop. Where one can carry even with a permit is another hoop and so on. The top down part works in that the 2A explicitly protects (which is not the same thing as grants) the RTKABA. It's been long upheld in the courts that States do have some discretion in certain aspects of how the 2A is implemented as long as such doesn't run afoul of what has been set forth there.

You really need to go back and read more history. The Constitution WAS supreme, but only in the strictly enumerated rights granted to it by States. What we have today, is what many feared in the ratification debates but were assured would never happen. Guess what, eventually it happened.

 

[hog88]

Yes, a couple of States still had an official church of that State, which flew in the face of the 1st Amendment but everyone at that time understood the Federal Bill of Rights did not apply to States. This later changed when it was perverted through incorporation.

If NY wants to ban guns, why would another State care? Why is it their business? Welcome to a Republic.

That is a poor example of the point you are trying to make. The provision in the 1st amendment regarding religion only applies to the federal government, it specifically says so.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

That section of the amendment restricts the power of the federal government, not the states. The other 9 amendments in the BoRs are individual rights which were not supposed to be restricted by the states.

 

[hndog609]

You really need to go back and read more history. The Constitution WAS supreme, but only in the strictly enumerated rights granted to it by States. What we have today, is what many feared in the ratification debates but were assured would never happen. Guess what, eventually it happened.

The 2A was part of the original ratification was it not? So from the get go that was part of the package agreed to by the States, right?

And as I stated many details in how that protected right is implemented have been left open to the discretion of the varied States.

 

[volgr]

That section of the amendment restricts the power of the federal government, not the states. The other 9 amendments in the BoRs are individual rights which were not supposed to be restricted by the states.

Wrong. The Bill of Rights was never meant to be apllied to States. Again, read ratification debates. Read Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention. This isn't debatable.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

 

[volgr]

The 2A was part of the original ratification was it not? So from the get go that was part of the package agreed to by the States, right?

And as I stated many details in how that protected right is implemented have been left open to the discretion of the varied States.

States already had their own Bill of Rights in State Constitutions. Why would they invalidate their own Bill of Rights with the Federal Bill of Rights?? The Federal Bill of Rights was an extra layer of protection to ensure the Feds wouldn't overstep.

 

[hog88]

Wrong. The Bill of Rights was never meant to be apllied to States. Again, read ratification debates. Read Madison's Notes on the Constitutional Convention. This isn't debatable.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

The constitution doesn't grant rights, it affirms rights and restricts the federal government.

 

[volgr]

The constitution doesn't grant rights, it affirms rights and restricts the federal government.

"The other 9 amendments in the BoRs are individual rights which were not supposed to be restricted by the states."

That isn't true or wasn't true before incorporation.

 

[hndog609]

States already had their own Bill of Rights in State Constitutions. Why would they invalidate their own Bill of Rights with the Federal Bill of Rights?? The Federal Bill of Rights was an extra layer of protection to ensure the Feds wouldn't overstep.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. They signed onto the big contract and agreed to what was stated therein. At that point you have the Federal Constitution and STILL have the option of adding whatever you wanted as long as it didn't conflict with the big one you just signed.

And just as an aside do you have any examples of States that had X "right" invalidated by the US Constitution? It doesn't change anything I addressed above but it would be interesting to see some concessions that had to be made to sign on.

 

[Jxn Vol]

If you have a run in with a cop let us know how that pocket constitution works for ya.

I’m not wrong. What does infringe mean to you? Do you like to be controlled? What does freedom and liberty mean to you. Don’t take offense to what I’m saying. Take a step back and research where we are as a country and where we came from.

We are not as free as we used to. Which is sad. It’s as sad as being concerned about a run in with a cop while you are being free and pursuing happiness.