login
no one wants to take your guns away from you
-
No new posts
 2013-02-15 1:17 PM |
Elite  2733     Venture Industries, |  Subject: no one wants to take your guns away from youRemember the rhetoric from "gun control" advocates that no one wants to take your guns away from you? Even under the Feinstein proposal previously owned weapons that would be banned in the future under the legislation are "grandfathered" in, similar to the prior assualt weapons ban. But...the plot thickens...in several states legislation has been proposed that REQUIRES gun owners to SURRENDER certain previously legal firearms to the government, or they will be in violation of the law. In Missouri the proposed legislation reads: "Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety daysfrom such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution: (1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri; (2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or (3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations. 5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony." And in Minnesota the proposed legislation reads: "Any person who, on February 1, 2013, legally owns or is in possession of an assault weapon has until September 1, 2013, to do any of the following without being subject to (1) remove the weapon from the state; (2) surrender the weapon to a law enforcement agency for destruction; (3) render the weapon permanently inoperable;" So all this talk about an "honest debate" on the issue of gun legislation, and then following that statement with the rhetoric "no one wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens...", coupled with the actual facts from the Heller case which effectively banned hand guns, is it really surprising that lawful gun owners don't really believe the gun control crowd? Seems like the "honest" truth is contrary to the rhetoric. |
| 2013-02-15 1:28 PM in reply to: #4624045 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... |
| 2013-02-15 1:33 PM in reply to: #4624045 |
New user 98 East Tennessee | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you New York's law is already in place. Assault Weapons, Magazine Capacity & Sale of Ammunition Assault Weapons Defined
o are semi-automatic, o have a detachable magazine (in the case of pistols and rifles), and o have one feature (two under current law) commonly associated with military weapons.
Magazine Capacity & Sale of Ammunition
|
| 2013-02-15 2:15 PM in reply to: #4624061 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you Aarondb4 - 2013-02-15 1:28 PM
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... It really doesn't say that. But the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't apply here. The 10th amendment leaves the regulations of guns within a state up to the states. I have no clue what Missouri or Minnesota's Constitution says about the rights to bear arms, and I frankly don't care. This is an issue for the people who live in those states to determine what works for them. Edited by Jackemy1 2013-02-15 2:17 PM |
| 2013-02-15 2:52 PM in reply to: #4624157 |
| Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 3:15 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-02-15 1:28 PM
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... It really doesn't say that. But the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't apply here. The 10th amendment leaves the regulations of guns within a state up to the states. I have no clue what Missouri or Minnesota's Constitution says about the rights to bear arms, and I frankly don't care. This is an issue for the people who live in those states to determine what works for them. You mean http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship. |
| 2013-02-15 3:12 PM in reply to: #4624157 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 3:15 PM Aarondb4 - 2013-02-15 1:28 PM
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... It really doesn't say that. But the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't apply here. The 10th amendment leaves the regulations of guns within a state up to the states. I have no clue what Missouri or Minnesota's Constitution says about the rights to bear arms, and I frankly don't care. This is an issue for the people who live in those states to determine what works for them. I don't want to get into the specifics....but you're wrong. The famous ,or infamous, Heller case struck down a municiple ban on firearm posession. If your analysis is correct, that the 2nd Amenment only applies to Federal action, then how did the U.S. Supreme Court (1) have jurisdiction to hear the case based upon Federal Constitutional limits and not State or in the case of D.C. municiple and (2) find that sections 7-2501.01(12), 7-2502.01(a), & 7-2502(a)(4) of the D.C. code violated the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution. If you are correct, shouldn't the analysis in Heller been confined to an analysis of applicable local laws? The U.S. Consitution is a floor not a ceiling, in that State's may, through their own constitutions or legislative actions, or executive orders, grant MORE freedoms than those found in the U.S. Constitution, but, likewise a State MAY NOT restrict the freedoms or rights found in the U.S. Constitution. |
| 2013-02-15 3:16 PM in reply to: #4624227 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you DanielG - 2013-02-15 3:52 PM Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 3:15 PM You mean ... Except for the McDonald Vs Chicago ruling which says it's applicable to the states, right? http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htmAarondb4 - 2013-02-15 1:28 PM
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... It really doesn't say that. But the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't apply here. The 10th amendment leaves the regulations of guns within a state up to the states. I have no clue what Missouri or Minnesota's Constitution says about the rights to bear arms, and I frankly don't care. This is an issue for the people who live in those states to determine what works for them. Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship. winner winner chicken dinner... that pesky 14th Amendment which extended the protections of the Bill of Rights beyond just the federal government and to the states too.... |
| 2013-02-15 3:32 PM in reply to: #4624227 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you DanielG - 2013-02-15 2:52 PM Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 3:15 PM You mean ... Except for the McDonald Vs Chicago ruling which says it's applicable to the states, right? http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htmAarondb4 - 2013-02-15 1:28 PM
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... It really doesn't say that. But the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't apply here. The 10th amendment leaves the regulations of guns within a state up to the states. I have no clue what Missouri or Minnesota's Constitution says about the rights to bear arms, and I frankly don't care. This is an issue for the people who live in those states to determine what works for them. Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship. I disagree and I think both NRA and the court were wrong in their decision/lawsuit. With 4 of the 9 judges and lower courts agreeing with me I think I could support a pretty strong case that my opinion is right and the supreme courts got it wrong. I ended my NRA membership in protest over that one.
Edited by Jackemy1 2013-02-15 3:34 PM |
| 2013-02-15 3:47 PM in reply to: #4624267 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you Brock Samson - 2013-02-15 3:16 PM DanielG - 2013-02-15 3:52 PM Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 3:15 PM You mean ... Except for the McDonald Vs Chicago ruling which says it's applicable to the states, right? http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htmAarondb4 - 2013-02-15 1:28 PM
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... It really doesn't say that. But the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't apply here. The 10th amendment leaves the regulations of guns within a state up to the states. I have no clue what Missouri or Minnesota's Constitution says about the rights to bear arms, and I frankly don't care. This is an issue for the people who live in those states to determine what works for them. Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship. winner winner chicken dinner... that pesky 14th Amendment which extended the protections of the Bill of Rights beyond just the federal government and to the states too.... 14th Amendment has never meant to extend the protection of the Bill of Rights (the first 9) beyond the federal government to the states. Only in some cases where it is ruled that the individual's rights outweigh state's rights. Again, in my opinion the SCOTUS got McDonald v Chicago wrong. |
| 2013-02-15 4:03 PM in reply to: #4624285 |
| Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 4:32 PM DanielG - 2013-02-15 2:52 PM Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 3:15 PM You mean ... Except for the McDonald Vs Chicago ruling which says it's applicable to the states, right? http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htmAarondb4 - 2013-02-15 1:28 PM
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... It really doesn't say that. But the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't apply here. The 10th amendment leaves the regulations of guns within a state up to the states. I have no clue what Missouri or Minnesota's Constitution says about the rights to bear arms, and I frankly don't care. This is an issue for the people who live in those states to determine what works for them. Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship. I disagree and I think both NRA and the court were wrong in their decision/lawsuit. With 4 of the 9 judges and lower courts agreeing with me I think I could support a pretty strong case that my opinion is right and the supreme courts got it wrong. I ended my NRA membership in protest over that one.
Hmmm I do believe I'll believe the person who introduced the 14th Amendment about whether it was to apply to states or not. Let's see... U.S. Supreme Court DUNCAN v. LOUISIANA, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) 391 U.S. 145 DUNCAN v. LOUISIANA. APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA. No. 410. Argued January 17, 1968. Decided May 20, 1968. (...) In response to this I can say only that the words "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" seem to me an eminently reasonable way of expressing the idea that henceforth the Bill of Rights shall apply to the States. 1 What more precious "privilege" of American citizenship could there be than that privilege to claim the protections of our great Bill of Rights? I suggest that any reading of "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" which excludes the Bill of Rights' safeguards renders the words of this section of the Fourteenth Amendment meaningless. Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment for passage in the Senate, certainly read the words this way. Although I have cited his speech at length in my Adamson dissent appendix, I believe it would be worthwhile to reproduce a part of it here. "Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution [the Senator had just read from the old opinion of Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (No. 3,230) (E. D. Pa. 1825)]. To these privileges and immunities, whatever they may be - for they are not and cannot be fully defined in their entire extent and precise nature - to these should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining [391 U.S. 145, 167] to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments. "Now, sir, here is a mass of privileges, immunities, and rights, some of them secured by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. . . . ". . . The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees." Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765-2766 (1866). (...) Let's see if there are other cases that mention it, even in passing... U.S. Supreme Court GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233 (1936) 297 U.S. 233 GROSJEAN, Sup'r of Public Accounts of Louisiana v. AMERICAN PRESS CO., Inc., et al. No. 303. Argued Jan. 13, 14, 1936. Decided Feb. 10, 1936 (...) We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safe- [297 U.S. 233, 244] guarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and among them the fundamental right of the accused to the aid of counsel in a criminal prosecution. (...) Any more, y'think? U.S. Supreme Court POWELL v. STATE OF ALA., 287 U.S. 45 (1932) 287 U.S. 45 POWELL et al. v. STATE OF ALABAMA. PATTERSON v. SAME. WEEMS et al. v. SAME. Nos. 98-100. Argued Oct. 10, 1932. Decided Nov. 7, 1932. (...) It is possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against national action may also be safeguarded against state action, because a denial of them would be a denial of due process of law. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 , 17 S.Ct. 581. If this is so, it is not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments, but because they are of such a nature that they are included in [287 U.S. 45, 68] the conception of due process of law.' While the question has never been categorically determined by this court, a consideration of the nature of the right and a review of the expressions of this and other courts makes it clear that the right to the aid of counsel is of this fundamental character. (...) Not a whole lot of gray area. McDonald was only the latest. Shame you didn't look into it more and just decided for yourself without more research about what actually has been decided. |
| 2013-02-15 4:13 PM in reply to: #4624045 |
| Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you I had to quote this one just because it mentions werewolves: JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER, 339 U.S. 763 (1950) If the Fifth Amendment confers its rights on all the world except Americans engaged in defending it, the same must be true of the companion civil-rights Amendments, for none of them is limited by its express terms, territorially or as to persons. Such a construction would mean that during military occupation irreconcilable enemy elements, guerrilla fighters, and "werewolves" could require the American Judiciary to assure them freedoms of speech, press, and assembly as in the First Amendment, right to bear arms as in the Second, security against "unreasonable" searches and seizures as in the Fourth, as well as rights to jury trial as in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. |
| 2013-02-15 4:39 PM in reply to: #4624073 |
| New user 900 , | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you volfireman07 - 2013-02-15 1:33 PM New York's law is already in place. Assault Weapons, Magazine Capacity & Sale of Ammunition Assault Weapons Defined
o are semi-automatic, o have a detachable magazine (in the case of pistols and rifles), and o have one feature (two under current law) commonly associated with military weapons.
Magazine Capacity & Sale of Ammunition
Here is a list of some crimes NYS finds less offensive than owning a PMag(a class D felony). |
| 2013-02-15 4:49 PM in reply to: #4624045 |
Champion 6962 Atlanta, Ga | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you So what you are saying is that the Federal Gov't doesn't want to take your guns away? But, as should be, each state is more than welcome to tighten laws as they see fit. So again, the Federal Gov't is not trying to take your guns away correct? |
| 2013-02-15 4:53 PM in reply to: #4624383 |
| Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you Marvarnett - 2013-02-15 5:49 PM So what you are saying is that the Federal Gov't doesn't want to take your guns away? But, as should be, each state is more than welcome to tighten laws as they see fit. So again, the Federal Gov't is not trying to take your guns away correct? You might want to read a bit further into the thread. |
| 2013-02-15 10:52 PM in reply to: #4624383 |
| Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you Marvarnett - 2013-02-15 2:49 PM So what you are saying is that the Federal Gov't doesn't want to take your guns away? But, as should be, each state is more than welcome to tighten laws as they see fit. So again, the Federal Gov't is not trying to take your guns away correct?
Are you saying the states can pass laws that violate the US constitution? |
| 2013-02-15 11:45 PM in reply to: #4624045 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you If these state laws pass, mark my word, before they become law, Police Officers will be taking out ads on CL, etc, offering pennies on the dollar to buy those guns that will become illegal. (Police Officers are exempt from the prohibitions that are proposed). We'll buy all we can afford.....believe it....they'll be CHEAP since they won't be worth a penny to "civilians" once the laws go into effect. My wife is the most liberal person I know, born and raised in Berkeley, Ca.....even she understands that the idea of the Police having the best weapons is wrong-headed in a free society. In her words, "these people are crazy, who wants to live in a country where only the Police have guns?" Be careful what you ask for.....getting behind laws that you don't fully understand is the same as wanting the laws based on your emotional reaction to isolated incidents. |
| 2013-02-16 6:54 AM in reply to: #4624652 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you crusevegas - 2013-02-15 11:52 PM Marvarnett - 2013-02-15 2:49 PM So what you are saying is that the Federal Gov't doesn't want to take your guns away? But, as should be, each state is more than welcome to tighten laws as they see fit. So again, the Federal Gov't is not trying to take your guns away correct?
Are you saying the states can pass laws that violate the US constitution? The South shall rise again!
|
| 2013-02-16 7:12 AM in reply to: #4624373 |
Expert 1456 Central New Jersey | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you NXS - 2013-02-15 5:39 PM volfireman07 - 2013-02-15 1:33 PM New York's law is already in place. Assault Weapons, Magazine Capacity & Sale of Ammunition Assault Weapons Defined
o are semi-automatic, o have a detachable magazine (in the case of pistols and rifles), and o have one feature (two under current law) commonly associated with military weapons.
Magazine Capacity & Sale of Ammunition
Here is a list of some crimes NYS finds less offensive than owning a PMag(a class D felony). I am almost afraid to ask but what is "substitution of a child"...what is being substituted? |
| 2013-02-16 7:21 AM in reply to: #4624768 |
| Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you wwlani - 2013-02-16 8:12 AM I am almost afraid to ask but what is "substitution of a child"...what is being substituted? For whatever reason you get temporary custody of a child, babysitting, day care, etc. You return a child that is not the same child you were given. There's an age element here too, I believe it's under 2 years or a year or something like that. Heyyy, my kiddo has a congenital heart defect so I'll start babysitting. When I find a baby a lot like mine, I'll switch them and have a healthy baby to raise. That sort of thing. |
| 2013-02-16 7:24 AM in reply to: #4624773 |
Expert 1456 Central New Jersey | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you that's what I suspected but wouln't that be kidnapping? |
| 2013-02-16 7:37 AM in reply to: #4624774 |
| Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you wwlani - 2013-02-16 8:24 AM that's what I suspected but wouln't that be kidnapping? Different crime. Kidnapping: Taking a person (doesn't have to be a kid) and demanding some sort of ransom. No substitution involved. Substitution: Slight of hand (you know what I mean) substituting one child for another. If you swapped babies with someone without their knowledge and you were brought up on kidnapping charges someone who just graduated from law school would get you off before the trial even got started: 18 USC § 1201 - Kidnapping Whoever unlawfully seizes, confines, inveigles, decoys, kidnaps, abducts, or carries away and holds for ransom or reward or otherwise any person... There's more but that's the important part. Now does swapping kids meet those standards for that law? No. So they had to make another law for this crime. |
| 2013-02-19 7:50 AM in reply to: #4624314 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 4:47 PM Brock Samson - 2013-02-15 3:16 PM DanielG - 2013-02-15 3:52 PM Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 3:15 PM You mean ... Except for the McDonald Vs Chicago ruling which says it's applicable to the states, right? http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htmAarondb4 - 2013-02-15 1:28 PM
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... It really doesn't say that. But the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't apply here. The 10th amendment leaves the regulations of guns within a state up to the states. I have no clue what Missouri or Minnesota's Constitution says about the rights to bear arms, and I frankly don't care. This is an issue for the people who live in those states to determine what works for them. Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship. winner winner chicken dinner... that pesky 14th Amendment which extended the protections of the Bill of Rights beyond just the federal government and to the states too.... 14th Amendment has never meant to extend the protection of the Bill of Rights (the first 9) beyond the federal government to the states. Only in some cases where it is ruled that the individual's rights outweigh state's rights. Again, in my opinion the SCOTUS got McDonald v Chicago wrong. Again, the problem with your argument is that it ignores not just 2nd amendment jurisprudence, but the entire line of 14th amendment jurisprudence. While, your "opinion" may be that the 14th Amendment wasn't meant to extend the protections of the Bill of Rights to the States, the fact is that it has. I'm just wondering, based upon your opinion, is it just the 2nd Amendment protections that were incorrectly expanded to the States, or the other Rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights too? I'm just trying to see how things work under your theory of Constitutional protections? I understand that you believe that the 14th Amendment doesn't or shouldn't extend the protections of the 2nd Amendment to the actions of the individual States, but does this thought process extend to State action as it pertains to say Freedom of Speech, or the Establishment Clause, or the Free Exercise Clause, or privacy rights? And if that is the case, then couldn't each state simply circumvent the Rights of the Bill of Rights? And even assuming your position is correct, you say that "Only in some cases where it is ruled that the individual's rights outweigh state's rights." I assume that this is where you find the protection for Freedom of Speech, and the remainder of the Federal Rights protected in the Bill of Rights being extended to the States, (seperate from any State COnstitution guarantees). But why isn't the right outlined in the 2nd Amendment such an "individual right" that "outweighs the state's rights?" |
| 2013-02-19 8:10 AM in reply to: #4624314 |
Elite 2733 Venture Industries, | Subject: RE: no one wants to take your guns away from you Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 4:47 PM Brock Samson - 2013-02-15 3:16 PM DanielG - 2013-02-15 3:52 PM Jackemy1 - 2013-02-15 3:15 PM You mean ... Except for the McDonald Vs Chicago ruling which says it's applicable to the states, right? http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htmAarondb4 - 2013-02-15 1:28 PM
What they really mean is no one will take your musket. Cuz the 2nd amendment says the right to bear muskets... It really doesn't say that. But the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal government and doesn't apply here. The 10th amendment leaves the regulations of guns within a state up to the states. I have no clue what Missouri or Minnesota's Constitution says about the rights to bear arms, and I frankly don't care. This is an issue for the people who live in those states to determine what works for them. Justice Alito observed: “It is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty” (p. 31). “The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote that the 2nd Amendment is fully applicable to states because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship. winner winner chicken dinner... that pesky 14th Amendment which extended the protections of the Bill of Rights beyond just the federal government and to the states too.... 14th Amendment has never meant to extend the protection of the Bill of Rights (the first 9) beyond the federal government to the states. Only in some cases where it is ruled that the individual's rights outweigh state's rights. Again, in my opinion the SCOTUS got McDonald v Chicago wrong. Additionally, while you may "believe" that the 14th Amendment was never "meant to extend the protections.." this statement ignores the historical facts that the 14th Amendment was used almost immediately to protect the rights of citizens against their own states, at least on a Due Process grounds. You then see the historical foot work in Slaughter-house and Lochner for the Federal governments use of the 14th Amendment to reach state action. The specific notion that the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the 14th Amendment starts to materialize in 1938 in Carolene Products Co. Lawrence Tribe calls this line of cases "selective incorporation" But even before Carolene there is a long list of cases that applied the 14th Amendment to protecting specific Rights of the Bill of Rights: Chicago, B & QR v. Chicago, (1897); Fiske v. Kansas (1927), Near v. Minn (1931), Cantwell v. Conn (1940), Everson v. Board of Education (1947) So, historically, the Supreme COurt has extended the rights of the Bill of Rights to the States throught the 14th Amendment not based upon your concept, but rather based upon "principles of justice so rooted in the tradition and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundemental" and thus "implicit in the concept of ordered linerty" and are "basic to our system ot jurisprudence" So, there is a long history of Bill of rights incorporation into the 14th AMendment. You may not like it, you may feel it wasn't the intent, but it dates back to the very inception of the 14th amendment. |
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK