View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 7:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So the party of "State's Rights" wants to force states to allow concealed carry, while having no say on who can be issued said licenses?
Sounds about right for the party of hypocrisy.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 8:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
So the party of "State's Rights" wants to force states to allow concealed carry, while having no say on who can be issued said licenses?
Sounds about right for the party of hypocrisy. |
The federal government has rights too. Check out Amendment #2 in the Bill of Rights.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 8:35 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
So the party of "State's Rights" wants to force states to allow concealed carry, while having no say on who can be issued said licenses?
Sounds about right for the party of hypocrisy. |
The federal government has rights too. Check out Amendment #2 in the Bill of Rights. |
There is no right to conceal carry. Perhaps you should reread that amendment and what SCOTUS has said on the matter.
In fact, SCOTUS just refused to hear the challenge against Florida's ban on open carry, much less concealed. That refusual means the federal court's ruling upholding the ban is law and there is no constitutional protection for it.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 9:22 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
So the party of "State's Rights" wants to force states to allow concealed carry, while having no say on who can be issued said licenses?
Sounds about right for the party of hypocrisy. |
The federal government has rights too. Check out Amendment #2 in the Bill of Rights. |
There is no right to conceal carry. Perhaps you should reread that amendment and what SCOTUS has said on the matter.
In fact, SCOTUS just refused to hear the challenge against Florida's ban on open carry, much less concealed. That refusual means the federal court's ruling upholding the ban is law and there is no constitutional protection for it. |
Huh? You don't seem to have a good grasp of knowledge on the issue here. I feel like you're deliberately misinterpreting this story to make an argument. The right to bear arms is the right of every citizen. Not just at home. Everywhere. And who is talking about open carry? The issue here is CONCEALED CARRY. What difference does it make if the SCOTUS upheld open carry ban? Nobody is even talking about that. As far as "much less concealed" is concerned, that is not being banned anywhere right now. Especially in Florida. I have a Florida concealed weapon permit. In my wallet. Also, perhaps you should re-read said Amendment? Not that anyone is talking about open carry here, but it says "shall not be infringed." Also, why are you for the rights of state government over the rights of American citizens?
This law would have very little effect on someone like me as I can carry in all but a few states. The only difference it would make in my life is that my renewal fees get a hell of a lot cheaper.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 10:00 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
Not that anyone is talking about open carry here, but it says "shall not be infringed." Also, why are you for the rights of state government over the rights of American citizens?
This law would have very little effect on someone like me as I can carry in all but a few states. The only difference it would make in my life is that my renewal fees get a hell of a lot cheaper. |
There is no constitutional right to walk around armed. SCOTUS, even in their questionably expansive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in Heller, has held that guns can be regulated. They have just reaffirmed that by allowing the federal court's rulings in both Florida and Maryland to stand.
There are many states that are "may issue" states which heavily restrict who can conceal carry in their states, and in practice many of them are really "no issue" as they don't ever grant the licence request. Federal Reciprocity would force these states to allow people from other states to carry within their borders even though the people of that state do not wish for it. And both the 9th and 3rd circuit courts have held "may issue" to be constitutional.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 10:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
There is no constitutional right to walk around armed. |
Yes, there is. It's right there in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't get any clearer. It doesn't say "only at home" anywhere.
justintyme wrote: |
SCOTUS, even in their questionably expansive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in Heller, has held that guns can be regulated. |
Questionably expansive? The cities involved with that ban were breaking the law. SCOTUS ruled their laws unconstitutional. Constitution again IS the law. Cities do not get to invent their own exceptions. THAT was the ruling in Heller vs. DC. The only thing that's "questionably expansive" are the rulings that restrict good citizens from exercising their right to bear arms.
justintyme wrote: |
They have just reaffirmed that by allowing the federal court's rulings in both Florida and Maryland to stand. |
I'm going to explain something to you...
"Open carry" means walking around in public with your gun VISIBLE.
"Concealed carry" means you are HIDING the gun somewhere in your person. The Florida and Maryland rulings banned OPEN CARRY. Again, nobody is talking about overruling open carry restrictions. Why do you keep going back to this ruling about open carry? Please read the article if you are not familiar with what this topic is about.
justintyme wrote: |
There are many states that are "may issue" states which heavily restrict who can conceal carry in their states, and in practice many of them are really "no issue" as they don't ever grant the licence request. Federal Reciprocity would force these states to allow people from other states to carry within their borders even though the people of that state do not wish for it. And both the 9th and 3rd circuit courts have held "may issue" to be constitutional. |
Those states are not only infringing on the 2nd Amendment by unfairly denying many law-abiding citizens from carrying, but they are also putting their own citizens in danger. So if this law gets passed, those states will have to adapt. Too bad if a bunch of power-drunk lawmakers don't like it. This would be the law of the land. That means previous rulings by the 9th circus would no longer matter.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 11:09 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Let's play Final Jeopardy.
The Category is Infamous Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
And the answer is "Heller".
The correct question is "What decision is destined to meet the same fate as Plessy, Dred Scott and Pace?"
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 11:15 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
[That means previous rulings by the 9th circus would no longer matter. |
They matter as to whether or not there is a constitutional right to conceal carry.
Congress may pass a law that allows it (though to be clear, that is unlikely to happen, as it has to get through the Senate), but that doesn't make it constitutionally protected. Some future congress could just as easily revoke the law if it were to pass.
I think you really need to read up on how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted by SCOTUS over the years. It was not even until 2008 and the Heller decision (on a 5-4 split) that the 2nd Amendment was considered to be applicable outside of service in a militia. So yes, it was an expansive ruling that redefined how that amendment was to be read. And even within that ruling, they still made explicitly clear that the right to own a firearm is not without significant limits.
And according to the 9th and 3rd circuit, one of those limits is the ability to carry the firearm on your person in public.
_________________ ↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012 Posts: 8407 Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 11:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
[That means previous rulings by the 9th circus would no longer matter. |
They matter as to whether or not there is a constitutional right to conceal carry.
Congress may pass a law that allows it (though to be clear, that is unlikely to happen, as it has to get through the Senate), but that doesn't make it constitutionally protected. Some future congress could just as easily revoke the law if it were to pass.
I think you really need to read up on how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted by SCOTUS over the years. It was not even until 2008 and the Heller decision (on a 5-4 split) that the 2nd Amendment was considered to be applicable outside of service in a militia. So yes, it was an expansive ruling that redefined how that amendment was to be read. And even within that ruling, they still made explicitly clear that the right to own a firearm is not without significant limits.
And according to the 9th and 3rd circuit, one of those limits is the ability to carry the firearm on your person in public. |
You don't seriously think he understands any of what you just wrote, do you?
I'm very curious what these clowns think would be the Constitutional basis for the feds cramming this down the throats of the states seeing as how it regulates activity occurring solely within the state with the laws. I really doubt the Supremes would blow the Full Faith and Credit clause all out of shape to uphold this overreach.
Aren't these the same assholes who claim to support states rights and federalism? Wonder what the Federalist Society's position is on this idiocy.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 11:26 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
So the party of "State's Rights" wants to force states to allow concealed carry, while having no say on who can be issued said licenses?
Sounds about right for the party of hypocrisy. |
The federal government has rights too. Check out Amendment #2 in the Bill of Rights. |
The second amendment is a limitation on Federal power. It grants exactly zero rights to the Federal government.
Not too keen on Constitutional Law are you.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009 Posts: 15737 Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 11:49 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
justintyme wrote: |
Congress may pass a law that allows it (though to be clear, that is unlikely to happen, as it has to get through the Senate), but that doesn't make it constitutionally protected. Some future congress could just as easily revoke the law if it were to pass. |
I know how that works. I didn't need an explanation for that. Well aware it's still an uphill battle and could be repealed at any time.
justintyme wrote: |
I think you really need to read up on how the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted by SCOTUS over the years. It was not even until 2008 and the Heller decision (on a 5-4 split) that the 2nd Amendment was considered to be applicable outside of service in a militia. |
You can't differentiate between the rulings in the Florida and Maryland cases compared to concealed carry reciprocity and now you're lecturing me about DC vs Heller. That's a good one. Thing is, they didn't rule on it until 2008 because it didn't get to the Supreme Court until then. That doesn't mean they re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment. By the way, the District of Columbia didn't decide to overstep the Bill of Rights until 1976.
justintyme wrote: |
So yes, it was an expansive ruling that redefined how that amendment was to be read. |
No. You said "questionably" expansive. So how was this questionable?
justintyme wrote: |
And according to the 9th and 3rd circuit, one of those limits is the ability to carry the firearm on your person in public. |
I think this is what you meant by "questionably expansive" rulings. It's no secret that the 9th circus is run by activists. It's questionable because a district court is overruling federal law. If this law passes the Senate, the 9th circus ruling will go by the wayside.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 11/30/17 11:58 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
You can't differentiate between the rulings in the Florida and Maryland cases compared to concealed carry reciprocity and now you're lecturing me about DC vs Heller. That's a good one. Thing is, they didn't rule on it until 2008 because it didn't get to the Supreme Court until then. That doesn't mean they re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment. By the way, the District of Columbia didn't decide to overstep the Bill of Rights until 1976. |
What? Try English next time.
You really have no idea what you're babbling about, do you. It's just random words and unrelated phrases.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 12:03 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
You don't seriously think he understands any of what you just wrote, do you?
I'm very curious what these clowns think would be the Constitutional basis for the feds cramming this down the throats of the states seeing as how it regulates activity occurring solely within the state with the laws. I really doubt the Supremes would blow the Full Faith and Credit clause all out of shape to uphold this overreach.
Aren't these the same assholes who claim to support states rights and federalism? Wonder what the Federalist Society's position is on this idiocy. |
As usual, you can't contribute anything to the conversation except getting angry and throwing out cheap insults.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause? Do you even know what you're talking about? Obviously not. It mainly applies to judicial proceedings. It's also widely understoofd that it has extremely little impact on the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws. Get educated!
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 12:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
Stonington_QB wrote: |
You can't differentiate between the rulings in the Florida and Maryland cases compared to concealed carry reciprocity and now you're lecturing me about DC vs Heller. That's a good one. Thing is, they didn't rule on it until 2008 because it didn't get to the Supreme Court until then. That doesn't mean they re-interpreted the 2nd Amendment. By the way, the District of Columbia didn't decide to overstep the Bill of Rights until 1976. |
What? Try English next time.
You really have no idea what you're babbling about, do you. It's just random words and unrelated phrases. |
It's in English. You need to learn to read. I can't help you there. I'll leave my responses in simpler terms so you can understand them.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 12:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Stonington_QB wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
You don't seriously think he understands any of what you just wrote, do you?
I'm very curious what these clowns think would be the Constitutional basis for the feds cramming this down the throats of the states seeing as how it regulates activity occurring solely within the state with the laws. I really doubt the Supremes would blow the Full Faith and Credit clause all out of shape to uphold this overreach.
Aren't these the same assholes who claim to support states rights and federalism? Wonder what the Federalist Society's position is on this idiocy. |
As usual, you can't contribute anything to the conversation except getting angry and throwing out cheap insults.
The Full Faith and Credit Clause? Do you even know what you're talking about? Obviously not. It mainly applies to judicial proceedings. It's also widely understoofd that it has extremely little impact on the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws. Get educated! |
Your pretensions are exceeded only by your manifest ignorance of the subject.
|
|
Stonington_QB
Joined: 05 Jul 2013 Posts: 756 Location: Siege Perilous
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 12:37 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
Your pretensions are exceeded only by your manifest ignorance of the subject. |
How long did it take for you to churn that one out? 15 minutes? It's hilarious that you had to consult Merriam-Webster to prove that you have a big vocabulary all of a sudden.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8227 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 2:47 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
The second amendment is a limitation on Federal power. |
That was the original understanding, as applied in Heller. Two years later in 2010 in McDonald, another 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment is also fully applicable as a limitation on the states.
The case is technically interesting because four justices reached that conclusion by finally incorporating the Second Amendment through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Thomas concurred in the result, but since he rejects the doctrine of substantive due process, he reaches the result via the Privileges & Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. |
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 8:00 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I'm well aware of that.
My comment was limited to the FEDERAL government because the erroneous comment to which I was responding addressed only FEDERAL power. State power was irrelevant.
The original comment was
"The federal government has rights too. Check out Amendment #2 in the Bill of Rights."
My response was
"The second amendment is a limitation on Federal power. It grants exactly zero rights to the Federal government. "
The key word in the initial sentence being "limitation," not "Federal".
You pulled one snippet out of context and created a red herring.
I could have written
"The second amendment is a limitation on Federal (and state) power. It grants exactly zero rights to the Federal government ( or to state governments)."
But that would have been completely superfluous in responding to the original post.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 66912 Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 8:24 am ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
Let's play Final Jeopardy.
The Category is Infamous Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
And the answer is "Heller".
The correct question is "What decision is destined to meet the same fate as Plessy, Dred Scott and Pace?" |
Plessy and Place stood for decades before being overturned (58 and 84 years respectively). Maybe your grandchildren will see the same happen to Heller.
Dred Scott was never overturned. Two constitutional amendments were required to undo it. There has been no case in which a majority Supreme Court decision declared that decision illegitimate and it is still occasionally cited.
_________________ I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013 Posts: 14550
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 8:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
pilight wrote: |
ArtBest23 wrote: |
Let's play Final Jeopardy.
The Category is Infamous Supreme Court Jurisprudence.
And the answer is "Heller".
The correct question is "What decision is destined to meet the same fate as Plessy, Dred Scott and Pace?" |
Plessy and Place stood for decades before being overturned (58 and 84 years respectively). Maybe your grandchildren will see the same happen to Heller.
Dred Scott was never overturned. Two constitutional amendments were required to undo it. There has been no case in which a majority Supreme Court decision declared that decision illegitimate and it is still occasionally cited. |
That was intentional.
It will eventually be overturned. Either by the Court itself acknowledging its error, or by amending the Constitution. Unfortunately, it may take many more years and far too many more premature deaths.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8227 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 12/01/17 2:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
ArtBest23 wrote: |
My comment was limited to the FEDERAL government because the erroneous comment to which I was responding addressed only FEDERAL power. State power was irrelevant.
The original comment was
"The federal government has rights too. Check out Amendment #2 in the Bill of Rights."
|
This whole thing is a tangent, but you're not going back far enough in the comment string to see what JIT and SQ were talking about in semi-legal language.
Stonington_QB wrote: |
justintyme wrote: |
So the party of "State's Rights" wants to force states to allow concealed carry, while having no say on who can be issued said licenses?
Sounds about right for the party of hypocrisy. |
The federal government has rights too. Check out Amendment #2 in the Bill of Rights. |
They seem to arguing about whether it's the states or the federal government that can legislate about concealed carry. Both the federal and state governments are prohibited from legislating unreasonably against concealed carry because the Second Amendment is a limitation on the power of both the federal government (Heller) and state governments (McDonald) .
The bill at issue seems to be one that is trying to harmonize or unify concealed carry permission across the nation, so that a person doesn't transform from law abiding citizen to mandatory felon when he drives across the border with a gun in his pocket from State X to State Y. I suppose that harmonization could occur two ways, each with a federal constitutional question attached to it:
1. Each state could enact a statute that says any person with a concealed carry permit from another state can carry concealed in our state. What Constitutional provision would authorize that state statute?
2. The federal government could pass a statute that accomplishes the same thing for all states. What Constitutional provision would authorize that federal statute?
Personally, I think the bill at issue in this topic will founder not on the rocks of the Constitution, but on the Byzantine and antidemocratic rules of the Senate.
Finally, I think the Heller majority decision is solidly founded in history and logic -- if not in all corners of current popular culture. My two favorite majority decisions that are founded in virtually no history or logic are Flood v. Kuhn and Obergefell. Of course, any Supreme Court decision is vulnerable to five lawyers in the Washington D.C. bubble, but most of those dangerous lawyers have at least some allegiance to the doctrine of precedent, so I don't expect any of these cases to be overruled. Heller like Roe is malleable and chippable-away-at; Obergefell, being dyadic, isn't. |
|
|
|