|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Dearborn, Michigan: Muslim caught in park with AK-47 assault rifle...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Dearborn, Michigan: Muslim caught in park with AK-47 assault rifle...
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
Well, as long as you don't expect your "direct examples" to be considered as "evidence" of anything...then post away. |
They are self-evident.
:ps: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
They are self-evident.
:ps: |
of what? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
A story like this gets out and people will call for tighter gun laws or be thankful that we could charge this guy with these crimes.
Where has our courage gone? This guy may want to start his own Jihad in this country, but if we really had our freedoms protected he would not get far and he would think twice before dressing up like Jihad Joe in the park.
Gun laws only work against law abiding people and they do not normally kill people. Does anyone think that the police would be able to save you fast enough if this guy decided to start shooting?
To the guy who suggested that States and Counties could pass gun laws and it would be okay is wrong. The states cannot violate the bill of rights. The only places that can prevent you from carrying a gun, according to the constitution, are private property owners.
We must support our rights under the 2nd amendment and all of our freedoms and liberties as well. I do not mean handguns or just for hunting, I mean the for the full intent of the second amendment.
Not to mention the fact that we would not incite all of this hatred if we just stuck to invading countries with bad movies and McDonalds instead of interventionist preemptive wars. Also, we would have much less street crime and more freedom if we ended the war on drugs. There would not be a reason for illegal drug trade anymore, just like you do not see many alcohol dealers on the street. Stupid people have the right to ruin their lives.
I know a guy who wants to do all of that... Ron Paul |
States can pass gun laws. They do that right now. It would be up to their State Constitution. To say they cannot seems to defy all that we know. Philadelphia has it's own Gun Laws. New York City has it's own.
The States are not bound by the Second Amendment. All of the 'Bill of Rights' do not apply to the States. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually.
Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually.
There is some dispute on these numbers but I don't see how the argument against them holds water. I think Gary Kleck has it right. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
Max-the-Silent
That is only possible if you repeal the second amendment . Or, it should be only possible but here we are paying income tax without a real law we can site. The intention is good, only the right people get to have weapons. The problem is who gets to decide who are the right people. Your law also introduces mandatory sentences and that is the legislative branch usurping power from the judicial branch.
We have to be very careful with how much trust we place in government. The federal government failed to protect us on 9/11 because of central planning. They had the information to stop the attack and they failed. They demanded that we cannot protect ourselves and made us defenseless, then they failed to protect us. We should not trust and elite group in a far off capital to run our lives.
Registering guns is also a problem because it is not the business of the government to have an inventory of my property.
These freedoms make us safer not less safe. We cannot expect to trade freedom for safety... you know that ol' chestnut... |
#1 Federalizing gun laws would not require the Second Amendment to be "repealed" It's been established and upheld that the government can require licenses and permits for firearms possession/use/manufacturing etc. In taking away state control, you do away with the local controls in current use that do infringe on the rights of the individual.
#2, gun registration exists at the federal and state levels at this time, FOPA be damnned - FFL dealers that close their doors are required to turn in all copies of the 4473 forms to the BATFE, who then have computerized those records. In many states, including California, there is a state mandated form (in Ca - the Dealer Record of Sale - DROS) that is created at the point of sale by the dealer, and provided to the state. Those records are retained, and filed. The State and the feds. have a very good idea concerning the original retail purchasers of firearms going back 40 years. In addition, there is a move afoot to restrict any transfers of firearms between individuals w/o going through an FFL dealer. It's the law now in CA, and it's a Brady center wetdream to get it nationwide.
In my original post, I stated that my idea was "guaranteed to piss off just about everyone" - I wasn't kidding. Most people who never have gone through the process of dealing with the ATF on NFA issues would not understand what I'm getting at - the bottom line for a law-abiding citizen would be this - take the classes, get licensed, and then do just about anything you want within the limit of your finances. Commit a crime with a firearm, you'd be gone forever.
This is all just smoke anyway - NAACP will elect Daniel Carver president before my idea would even get traction. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
#1 Federalizing gun laws would not require the Second Amendment to be "repealed" It's been established and upheld that the government can require licenses and permits for firearms possession/use/manufacturing etc. In taking away state control, you do away with the local controls in current use that do infringe on the rights of the individual. |
What the Feds do is through the Commerce Clause. Not the second amendment.
We live in individual States. As citizens of those States we can be free. Free to expand or retract on Gun Control or lack thereof.
Keep the Feds where they are.
We always can change things in a State, much harder changing 50 States. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
In addition, there is a move afoot to restrict any transfers of firearms between individuals w/o going through an FFL dealer.
I support that idea.
I still don't understand why I should be able to sell my AK or any weapon to anyone just because I am supposed to ask them for their driver license and ask then if they can legally own the weapon. Private sales need to go. Let them go through a FFL and let the FFL run the background check.
To me, this is a no-brainer. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
In addition, there is a move afoot to restrict any transfers of firearms between individuals w/o going through an FFL dealer.
I support that idea.
I still don't understand why I should be able to sell my AK or any weapon to anyone just because I am supposed to ask them for their driver license and ask then if they can legally own the weapon . Private sales need to go. Let them go through a FFL and let the FFL run the background check.
To me, this is a no-brainer. |
As an individual, you don't even have to do that much - only licensees are required to comply with the GCA requirements.
The law wrt the sale of firearms is screwy - if I have a 500 piece collection and want to sell it off, I'm legally able to do so (not in CA though...) w/o being a FFL. If I buy and then sell three firearms, for profit, I need to have an FFL.
There are existing laws that address illegal sales of firearms. Enforce them. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
What the Feds do is through the Commerce Clause. Not the second amendment.
We live in individual States. As citizens of those States we can be free. Free to expand or retract on Gun Control or lack thereof.
Keep the Feds where they are.
We always can change things in a State, much harder changing 50 States. |
When you can point me to an example of a state expanding civil rights in the face of federal opposition, let me know. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
When you can point me to an example of a state expanding civil rights in the face of federal opposition, let me know. |
Assuming you are correct it makes even worse your argument to have a Federal controlled set of laws, dealing in a uniform way, the nations gun laws.
A State has the right to do as it chooses consistent with a majority vote by it's citizens, it's State Constitution, and it's Democratic process... as long as it does not violate the U.S. Constitution. |
|
|
| bcmiller |
Max-the-Silent,
You are right, they would not pass your law but even if they did it would be better than what now exists... However still unconstitutional.
I am sure you did not mean to imply that just because there is a law, it is constitutional. I do not deny that we have many laws that should not be laws. The Patriot Act allows for searches and wiretaps without warrants. Many of the anti-drug laws are a problem. Then there is the IRS, who without finding you guilty of any crime can seize your property. Our judicial branch has the authority "both as to law and fact" and should weed out unconstitutional laws, but many times they legislate from the bench.
Stonewall,
You are completely misinformed. The states ratify amendments to the constitution and must follow those laws. They should be left to self rule in all matters not defined in the constitution but as we know they are not. So now we have federal seatbelt laws and the FCC etc...
Read Article 6 of the constitution where it says that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. I bolded the important parts.
Quote: Article VI
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
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.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. |
-----------------------------
The bottom line is that the government has overreached in many areas and we need to reel them in... No surprise who I think can do this for us. Ron Paul
edit...
Sorry, while waiting my mandatory 30 minutes Stonewall has added "unless it violates the constitution" in a later post. That contradicts what he said above a bit.
Also, What does the license you need to drive a car have to do with owning or buying a gun? You should only have to show your driver's license when you are driving. You wouldn't show your fishing license to buy milk would you?
We really have allowed the role of government to expand too much so now things that would have sounded horrible long ago are perfectly acceptable.
edit again,
Stonewall pointed out incorporation That was very educational and I was not really up on that to be honest.
I do think that the fact that this was first used in the 14th amendment means that they felt it should apply to the states too. Maybe this was an overreach, but I do not know where it was prohibited in the constitution either.
Since then the amendment process has been used, not to just restrict the Federal Government but to also restrict the states. I think it is reasonable to think that if the constitution is the supreme law of the land, any amendment applies to the states as well.
|
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
Max-the-Silent,
You are right, they would not pass your law but even if they did it would be better than what now exists... However still unconstitutional.
I am sure you did not mean to imply that just because there is a law, it is constitutional. I do not deny that we have many laws that should not be laws. The Patriot Act allows for searches and wiretaps without warrants. Many of the anti-drug laws are a problem. Then there is the IRS, who without finding you guilty of any crime can seize your property. Our judicial branch has the authority "both as to law and fact" and should weed out unconstitutional laws, but many times they legislate from the bench.
Stonewall,
You are completely misinformed. The states ratify amendments to the constitution and must follow those laws. They should be left to self rule in all matters not defined in the constitution but as we know they are not. So now we have federal seatbelt laws and the FCC etc...
Read Article 6 of the constitution where it says that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. I bolded the important parts.
-----------------------------
The bottom line is that the government has overreached in many areas and we need to reel them in... No surprise who I think can do this for us. Ron Paul |
I'm sorry to inform you otherwise, but you are wrong. Look in to what I am saying. Do a search for U.S. Constitution and incorporation. You will discover a world not known to you now... |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
As an individual, you don't even have to do that much - only licensees are required to comply with the GCA requirements.
The law wrt the sale of firearms is screwy - if I have a 500 piece collection and want to sell it off, I'm legally able to do so (not in CA though...) w/o being a FFL. If I buy and then sell three firearms, for profit, I need to have an FFL.
There are existing laws that address illegal sales of firearms. Enforce them. |
I know. Remember, I have a FFL03. Haven't used it for awhile, I ran out of money... :(
What do think about private sales Max? Make them go through a FFL or not? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
Sorry, while waiting my mandatory 30 minutes Stonewall has added "unless it violates the constitution" in a later post. That contradicts what he said above a bit.
|
It does not contradict at all.
My meaning as in "unless it violates the Constitution" means a State's citizens cannot pass a law that violates the U.S. Constitution. They cannot pass a law that stops a women from voting. Or, a certain racial or ethnic group. There are many things you cannot do on a State level.
The second amendment of course not binding on the States. Therefore it does not play into this and cannot contradict. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
as long as it does not violate the U.S. Constitution. |
doesn't that qualification negate the whole argument :jj: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The second amendment of course not binding on the States. Therefore it does not play into this and cannot contradict. |
wtf are you talking about
it is binding on all states :burst: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
doesn't that qualification negate the whole argument :jj: |
No, because the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with a States own Constitutional protections in regards gun control or lack thereof.
Again the second amendment does not apply to the States. Your refusal to recognize this is due to your unwillingness to learn. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
No, because the U.S. Constitution has nothing to do with a States own Constitutional protections in regards gun control or lack thereof.
Again the second amendment does not apply to the States. Your refusal to recognize this is due to your unwillingness to learn. |
Please give an example of the distinction you are making here.
You are saying that state gun laws are not subject to federal review? That is news to me. |
|
|
| bcmiller |
What Stonewall is saying is true from what I have read and I was not really aware of that issue or I have forgotten if I was. I cannot be dogmatic about the constitution in only some areas. That is how we got in this mess.
I think that the amendments that are ratified by the states should restrict the states as well as the federal government but that is a personal opinion and debatable as a matter of law from what I have read. I am not immovable when presented with facts, hopefully Stonewall will not live up to his name and follow my example in other issues.
However, Stonewall seems to agree that the federal gun laws are unconstitutional and that is fine with me. I am mainly getting active in this section of the forum to convince people to vote for Ron Paul for President. I live in a State that is pretty good on gun control, Virginia, so the federal laws are what I am most concerned about and all the President can deal with. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
Please give an example of the distinction you are making here.
You are saying that state gun laws are not subject to federal review? That is news to me. |
It depends.
The feds have the Commerce Clause power. If a State would step on that they would be pulled back. So, in that way a door is open.
The Supreme Court is very wary of telling a State Supreme Court what the States Constitution means. They will bow to a States own understanding of it's constitution. Usually.
The States Gun Laws are not to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court using the Second Amendment as a guide. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It depends.
The feds have the Commerce Clause power. If a State would step on that they would be pulled back. So, in that way a door is open.
The Supreme Court is very wary of telling a State Supreme Court what the States Constitution means. They will bow to a States own understanding of it's constitution. Usually.
The States Gun Laws are not to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court using the Second Amendment as a guide. |
So, an example? Even a hypothetical?
If not the 2nd Amendment - then what is the federal court's guide? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
What Stonewall is saying is true from what I have read and I was not really aware of that issue or I have forgotten if I was. I cannot be dogmatic about the constitution in only some areas. That is how we got in this mess.
I think that the amendments that are ratified by the states should restrict the states as well as the federal government but that is a personal opinion and debatable as a matter of law from what I have read. I am not immovable when presented with facts, hopefully Stonewall will not live up to his name and follow my example in other issues.
However, Stonewall seems to agree that the federal gun laws are unconstitutional and that is fine with me. I am mainly getting active in this section of the forum to convince people to vote for Ron Paul for President. I live in a State that is pretty good on gun control, Virginia, so the federal laws are what I am most concerned about and all the President can deal with. |
I think most of what the Feds do is unconstitutional. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Stoney, are you just talking about gun sale laws being covered by the commerce clause?
I am thinking about gun possession and carrying issues. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
So, an example? Even a hypothetical?
If not the 2nd Amendment - then what is the federal court's guide? |
The guide would be the powers granted under the Commerce Clause. The National Government can regulate the manufacture of guns. They can set the rules just like with any other product. They can prevent a State from stepping on that power.
There is no guide on the rights of the people of a State to own firearms. The Supreme Court cannot do anything about it.
That is how it is now. That does not mean it will be that way forever. The Supreme Court can do what it wants for whatever reason it wants. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
The guide would be the powers granted under the Commerce Clause. The National Government can regulate the manufacture of guns. They can set the rules just like with any other product. They can prevent a State from stepping on that power.
There is no guide on the rights of the people of a State to own firearms. The Supreme Court cannot do anything about it.
That is how it is now. That does not mean it will be that way forever. The Supreme Court can do what it wants for whatever reason it wants. |
I call bullshit on this. But I will have to research it. Since you cannot discuss any examples I will have to wait to figure out wtf you are talking about. |
|
|
| mingmen |
| I think you are only speaking about one aspect of gun law here, Stoney. Or maybe you could provide examples. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
I think you are only speaking about one aspect of gun law here, Stoney. Or maybe you could provide examples. |
We are heading off into two different directions, in a way.
If a local town bans firearms, then the citizens against it will appeal, go to State Court. The Supreme Court of that State will rule one way or the other based upon the State Constitution. When that is appealed to the Feds the U.S. Supreme Court will rule based upon the State Constitution. Because there is no guide for that question in the U.S. Constitution. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
We are heading off into two different directions, in a way.
If a local town bans firearms, then the citizens against it will appeal, go to State Court. The Supreme Court of that State will rule one way or the other based upon the State Constitution. When that is appealed to the Feds the U.S. Supreme Court will rule based upon the State Constitution. Because there is no guide for that question in the U.S. Constitution. |
Since you have this detailed a knowledge of the subject, perhaps you could provide an example. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
Since you have this detailed a knowledge of the subject, perhaps you could provide an example. |
I just gave you an example. Give me an example of an example. I don't know what you want exactly and that last post was an example to explain it. Ask another question that might make me understand what type example you are looking for. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I just gave you an example. Give me an example of an example. I don't know what you want exactly and that last post was an example to explain it. Ask another question that might make me understand what type example you are looking for. |
An example that illustrates how the feds have no guide on how to deal with a gun law. This is new to me. Just of the top of your head. The simplest example. Like precedent. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
An example that illustrates how the feds have no guide on how to deal with a gun law. This is new to me. Just of the top of your head. The simplest example. Like precedent. |
In the mean time you find the opposite of what you ask me. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
Assuming you are correct it makes even worse your argument to have a Federal controlled set of laws, dealing in a uniform way, the nations gun laws.
A State has the right to do as it chooses consistent with a majority vote by it's citizens, it's State Constitution, and it's Democratic process... as long as it does not violate the U.S. Constitution. |
Look at the various states that have passed medical marijuana laws, and the federal opposition and enforcement actions taken against state residents. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Look at the various states that have passed medical marijuana laws, and the federal opposition and enforcement actions taken against state residents. |
That is not the same. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I know. Remember, I have a FFL03. Haven't used it for awhile, I ran out of money... :(
What do think about private sales Max? Make them go through a FFL or not? |
When I had a type 01 license, the majority of my sales were to individuals that were well known to me - I did not have a retail location, and even though I complied with all state and federal regulations, I knew exactly who I was selling to - if you've known a guy for 30 years, been to his wedding, his father's funeral, his baby's first communion, you've got a pretty good idea as to his character.
Being a SOT, I was aclimated to going through all the major hoops wrt manufacturing and selling MG's and other NFA devices. Once you get used to that, the run-of-the-mill requirements regarding firearms sales seems like a walk in the park.
Today, the only remaining license I carry is the same as yours, the 03 (which in CA. doesn't do a hell of a lot for you) and I really don't ever sell any firearms, and when I do, a local type 01 licensee handles the transaction for me.
To answer your question, for me, I'm already required by law to do any transaction regarding a firearm through an FFL. In my heart, if my BIL and I want to swap 1911's, it shouldn't be anyones business but ours - in the street world and the world of individuals that don't operate on my level, a law requiring individual transfers to go through an FFL with a NICS check and a 4473 wouldn't be a bad idea, but in my heart of hearts, I'd still see it as another nail in the coffin of civilian gun ownership. As I said in another post, the feds and several of the states have started gun registration databases, in conflict with the Firearms Owners Protection Act:
The act also forbade the U.S. Government or any agency of it from keeping a registry directly linking non-National Firearms Act firearms to their owners, the specific language of this law ( Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926 (2) (a)) being: No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
The fact that the federal government and many states are in violation of this federal statute, without legal recourse by individual firearms owners, gives me pause to give them any more intrusion into the personal affairs of gun owners than they already have taken. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is not the same. |
Last I checked, marijuana and drug laws in general were contained in the USC, not the Constitution. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
Last I checked, marijuana and drug laws in general were contained in the USC, not the Constitutuion. |
No doubt.
Since the creation of the FDA it is only a matter of that agency classifying a drug. In this case Congress has classified marijuana as illegal. There is no power to do this. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
The fact that the federal government and many states are in violation of this federal statute, without legal recourse by individual firearms owners, gives me pause to give them any more intrusion into the personal affairs of gun owners than they already have taken. |
I see your point. The fact that one side can't trust the other is what's really holding a lot of good legislation back. And it is always the gun owner who is asked to put his head in the lion's mouth. |
|
|
| Max-the-Silent |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
I see your point. The fact that one side can't trust the other is what's really holding a lot of good legislation back. And it is always the gun owner who is asked to put his head in the lion's mouth. |
It's not all doom and gloom.
I know of cases where stolen firearms have been recovered and returned to the lawfull owner, sometimes after a period of years, and that couldn't take place without some type of firearms registration - You should always make a immediate report to the local LEA and ATF when a firearm is lost or stolen, and that information would be on the books with NICS unless/until the firearm is recovered.
The other side of this are the certain localities where even when a stolen firearm is recovered, it's local policy not to make any effort to return the firearm to it's owner -shitty, but true. Worse than that, there is a local jurisdiction with a standing order to take "every firearm" off the street that the dept. encounters - even legal firearms being transported in accordance with state law. Get in an traffic accident, have a long locked in the trunk in a locked case? the officer that responds discovers it? long goes bye-bye, the owner has to get an attorney to recover the rifle or shotgun, even when everything is legal. Sometimes even when the judge orders the return of the firearm in question, the department ignores the order, or the firearm "is missing" or the DA's office informs the court that there is an "on-going investigation" and the firearm can't be released.
Welcome to San Francisco, California. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Stonewall, at what point does a state violate the US Constitution and the resident of that state have cause to go to the supreme court for relief?
Example being California and it's restrictive gun laws. What if California banned all hand guns tomorrow. Would the citizens of California not have the right to hear their objection to that heard under the second amendment argument in the SCOTUS? |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Max-the-Silent
It's not all doom and gloom.
I know of cases where stolen firearms have been recovered and returned to the lawfull owner, sometimes after a period of years, and that couldn't take place without some type of firearms registration - You should always make a immediate report to the local LEA and ATF when a firearm is lost or stolen, and that information would be on the books with NICS unless/until the firearm is recovered.
The other side of this are the certain localities where even when a stolen firearm is recovered, it's local policy not to make any effort to return the firearm to it's owner -shitty, but true. Worse than that, there is a local jurisdiction with a standing order to take "every firearm" off the street that the dept. encounters - even legal firearms being transported in accordance with state law. Get in an traffic accident, have a long locked in the trunk in a locked case? the officer that responds discovers it? long goes bye-bye, the owner has to get an attorney to recover the rifle or shotgun, even when everything is legal. Sometimes even when the judge orders the return of the firearm in question, the department ignores the order, or the firearm "is missing" or the DA's office informs the court that there is an "on-going investigation" and the firearm can't be released.
Welcome to San Francisco, California. |
Yeah, that's pretty shitty. Especially if it was your Dad's all matching M1 bring back from WW2 that is worth a thousand dollars but many more times that in sentimental value.
That is damn near a nazi-like police state. :( |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Stonewall, at what point does a state violate the US Constitution and the resident of that state have cause to go to the supreme court for relief?
Example being California and it's restrictive gun laws. What if California banned all hand guns tomorrow. Would the citizens of California not have the right to hear their objection to that heard under the second amendment argument in the SCOTUS? |
If your State adopted a State religion then a resident could go to Federal Court and get relief because although the amendment states that 'Congress shall make no law...', that amendment has been incorporated and now applies to the States.
The second amendment not being incorporated means that no relief under that amendment is possible.
The Federal Courts would have to judge based upon the States own Constitution. But, they are very wary of telling a State what it's constitution means. They usually let the States Supreme Court judgment stand even if they may not judge the same way. If it's in the ballpark they will let it stand.
In a word the answer to your post is "No". |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
If your State adopted a State religion then a resident could go to Federal Court and get relief because although the amendment states that 'Congress shall make no law...', that amendment has been incorporated and now applies to the States.
The second amendment not being incorporated means that no relief under that amendment is possible.
The Federal Courts would have to judge based upon the States own Constitution. But, they are very wary of telling a State what it's constitution means. They usually let the States Supreme Court judgment stand even if they may not judge the same way. If it's in the ballpark they will let it stand.
In a word the answer to your post is "No". |
Interesting. Then what is the ramifications of the SCOTUS hearing the Parker v. District of Columbia case?
The NRA-ILA say this: "As we reported in the July 20, Grassroots Alert, while it is too early to tell whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear the appeal, the District’s action sets the stage for a possible showdown over the meaning of the Second Amendment"
What would it amount to if the SC rules in favor of Parker? Nothing? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Interesting. Then what is the ramifications of the SCOTUS hearing the Parker v. District of Columbia case?
The NRA-ILA say this: "As we reported in the July 20, Grassroots Alert, while it is too early to tell whether the Supreme Court will choose to hear the appeal, the District’s action sets the stage for a possible showdown over the meaning of the Second Amendment"
What would it amount to if the SC rules in favor of Parker? Nothing? |
D.C. is not a State.
The meaning of the second amendment is only useful in a federal context. What matters is the meaning of your own state constitution's protections or lack thereof.
For now. As you are I'm sure are aware, the U.S. Supreme Court can do anything and they might take a case and then incorporate the second amendment and then the game is on. I do not think they will do this and I'm positive as can be that no "originalist" Justice of the Court would even consider such a thing. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Would you agree with this passage from the DOJ:
The Supreme Court did not address the substance of the Second Amendment during this period, because of its view that the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, did not
apply to the States.432 In Robertson v. Baldwin, however, the Court invoked the history of, and limitations on, the various rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, to illustrate and defend a holding regarding the limitations on the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery:
The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had from time immemorial been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (art. 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; [and] the right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons . . . .433
I'm not a constitutional scholar but isn't that saying what you have been saying, that the Bill of Rights does not pertain to the States?
Then who does the Bill of Rights pertain too? :confused: |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by NC-Stern-Mark
Would you agree with this passage from the DOJ:
The Supreme Court did not address the substance of the Second Amendment during this period, because of its view that the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, did not
apply to the States.432 In Robertson v. Baldwin, however, the Court invoked the history of, and limitations on, the various rights in the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, to illustrate and defend a holding regarding the limitations on the Thirteenth Amendment’s ban on slavery:
The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had from time immemorial been subject to certain well-recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (art. 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; [and] the right of the people to keep and bear arms (art. 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons . . . .433
I'm not a constitutional scholar but isn't that saying what you have been saying, that the Bill of Rights does not pertain to the States?
Then who does the Bill of Rights pertain too? :confused: |
It was not till after the Civil War, a couple decades I believe, that the Supreme Court began it's theory of incorporation. Based upon the 14th Amendment.
When adopted the so called "Bill of Rights" were not applied to the States. The States had protections already within their own Constitutions.
The "Bill of Rights" were more prohibitions on the National Government than "rights". The rights spoken of were mainly rights that would be guaranteed as the National Government was setting up it's own Judicial System for Federal crimes and disputes between the States etc.. The people wanted these protections as they enjoyed within their own States Judicial systems. So you have some guidelines for this new Federal Judicial System, the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th amendments.
I am not against all of the Bill of Rights. Certainly I am in regard to the second amendment and some of the first amendment.
The inclusion of the 9th and 10th amendments show the problems that the framers foresaw. That adding certain rights does not mean other rights are not retained and all power not enumerated rests with the States or the people.
We are right now seeing all the problems that were warned against by people who were against this "Bill of Rights" when they were adopted.
You have people saying..."It does not say the Government cannot do it"... When referring to the Constitution and the power of the National Government. The whole thing is upside down. We are trained to think that way. We are trained to believe in a "Living Constitution". We are taught this. Just the way a Government would want people to think. A Government that wants unlimited powers.
We don't even think about the Constitution. We think National Healthcare and what we want. |
|
|
| bcmiller |
I have to agree with that. The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law" not that they can make any law.
Sorry I can't post again for 30 minutes...
Judicial review has become legislation from the bench. Sorry if I was not tracking with the whole thread though. |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I'm sorry to inform you otherwise, but you are wrong. Look in to what I am saying. Do a search for U.S. Constitution and incorporation. You will discover a world not known to you now... |
Wow,
I'm ashamed of my ignorance on this subject. :( |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
In the mean time you find the opposite of what you ask me. |
I have never heard of this. You were very specific and I assumed that must come from a knowledge of case law etc. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by bcmiller
I have to agree with that. The constitution says, "Congress shall make no law" not that they can make any law. |
We are talking about judicial review. Not legislative action. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
That is a good case to look at. It shows that even under the commerce clause the Court has limits in regard to federal firearms legislation. |
|
|
| dredlocke |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
That is a good case to look at. It shows that even under the commerce clause the Court has limits in regard to federal firearms legislation. |
But do you have an example where a state gun law was reviewed. Not an act of congress. There has never been a review of a state gun law by the feds? Other than the sale and purchase requirements. |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by dredlocke
But do you have an example where a state gun law was reviewed. Not an act of congress. There has never been a review of a state gun law by the feds? Other than the sale and purchase requirements. |
No.
It would not be worthwhile in any case because all that it would decide is if the law violated the States own Constitution. Which could change. |
|
|
| dredlocke |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
No.
It would not be worthwhile in any case because all that it would decide is if the law violated the States own Constitution. Which could change. |
I cannot believe this has never come up. And you are saying the DC case is not applicable why? |
|
|
| Stonewall |
Quote: Originally posted by dredlocke
I cannot believe this has never come up. And you are saying the DC case is not applicable why? |
I'm not saying it has never come up. If it did however it would be a judgment based upon the State Constitution.
D.C. is not a State. It is federal land. In the final instance that is what D.C. is. |
|
|
| dredlocke |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
I'm not saying it has never come up. If it did however it would be a judgment based upon the State Constitution.
D.C. is not a State. It is federal land. In the final instance that is what D.C. is. |
But you know of no examples of these judgements based on a state constitution? It makes me curious how you came up with this sans examples. I am not saying you are wrong - I am just looking for some illustrations that bear your claims out. |
|
|
| dredlocke |
| I assumed that state courts wrote their gun legislation carefully to prevent federal review...not that there was basis for federal courts to rule upon state gun laws. |
|
|
| dredlocke |
Quote: Originally posted by Stonewall
It would not be worthwhile in any case because all that it would decide is if the law violated the States own Constitution. Which could change. |
Is there anything you can point to in order to back this up. Wiki, anything. Where did you learn of this? |
|
|
|
|
|
