|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 18, 2018, 10:51 PM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 435
|
Many states with strict gun laws would either have to give up some of their authority to make laws tailored to their own populations, or looser states would have to adopt stricter gun laws. There's no compromising in this day and age.
__________________
“Peace is that brief glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading".” ― --Thomas Jefferson |
January 18, 2018, 10:53 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
January 18, 2018, 10:54 PM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
January 19, 2018, 10:03 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
The federalist objection to handing Congress the power to regulate strictly intrastate carry is one I've found to be a minority position in most groups of shooters, this one included. Your original sentiment, the one I quote back to you on the prior page is practical and easy to understand. Put a bit differently, federalism and constitutional limits on federal power are a protection against federal dictation that could prohibit legal carry when federal office holders change. If we ignore those constitutional limits when it suits our desires, how are we situated to assert those limits when the winds change and people desire to prohibit you from carrying or possessing? I believe the way I've put it is less intuitive than the way you have, but these are your acquaintances and you'll have a better sense of what they would accept.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
January 19, 2018, 10:14 AM | #30 |
Member
Join Date: November 19, 2016
Posts: 19
|
|
January 19, 2018, 10:56 AM | #31 | |
Registration in progress
Join Date: October 2, 2015
Posts: 137
|
Quote:
The current system is probably the "best" we have, unfortunately. NateKirk, your spot on IMO. We would have too many blue states demanding that the people as a whole would only be allowed to have a certain amount of rounds in a mag, no imprinting allowed (not to say I imprint on purpose, but there are times I am sure I do imprint a little), no mods to the pistols. I guess I don't want other states trying to dictate what I can do in my own state, either. Now I am seeing the bigger picture. - P |
|
January 19, 2018, 05:28 PM | #32 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
|
January 20, 2018, 01:18 PM | #33 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
I am in favor of national reciprocity. I am NOT in favor of a federal mandate or law forcing such.
The system allows for complete reciprocity, already, and always has. The fact that some states choose not to participate, is also allowed in our system. Yes, it ought to be like drivers licenses, where all the states have chosen to accept all the other states licenses. But it isn't, and its within the law, and states rights for them to make that choice. If you are looking for a short, simple argument against national reciprocity, there isn't one. Nor, should there be. It's a good idea, and a sound principle. HOWEVER, there are numerous and valid arguments about how national reciprocity is to be obtained. Right now, it is the will of certain states to set their own standards for what they will, and will not recognize in this matter. Is it a just use of Federal authority to take this away from them?? Does the Federal govt HAVE the LEGAL authority to do it? (you have to look at MORE than just the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution, because, that clause does not (in legal terms) say what most people think it says) I think its horrible that someone could be looking at years of jail time, simply because they missed their exit on the freeway, or their plane had to make an emergency landing. I also think its horrible that in those kind of cases, the state prosecutes them to the full extent of the law. No matter what is, and isn't in any reciprocity bill, if it becomes law, its certain to be challenged. After it finally reaches the high court (and assuming the high court chooses to hear the case -which is NOT a given) then we well have a decision. Probably a bad one.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 22, 2018, 08:34 AM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
I was curious about the Constitutionality of National Reciprocity. I understand the Constitutionality when it involves a person going from state A to state B but how is it justified when person is merely carrying in state A? How does carry just in state A affect interstate commerce or fall under another part of the U.S. Constitution?
|
January 22, 2018, 08:51 AM | #35 | |
Member
Join Date: November 19, 2016
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
Here is the actual text of how they rationalized the interstate provision to ban guns from schools ... 104th CONGRESS 1st Session S. 890 To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to gun free schools, and for other purposes. IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES June 7 (legislative day, June 5), 1995 The Congress finds and declares that-- (A) crime, particularly crime involving drugs and guns, is a pervasive, nationwide problem; B) crime at the local level is exacerbated by the interstate movement of drugs, guns, and criminal gangs ... (F) the occurrence of violent crime in school zones has resulted in a decline in the quality of education in our country; G) this decline in the quality of education has an adverse impact on interstate commerce and the foreign commerce of the United States ... Want to take it to a greater extreme??? Look up Wickard v. Filburn at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1955/317us111 In the case below, Filburn affected interstate commerce by growing his own feed and not getting it though the normal channels of interstate commerce. Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio ... harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use ... The rule laid down by Justice Jackson is that even if an activity is local and not regarded as commerce, "it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'" |
|
January 22, 2018, 11:34 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
Is there any evidence, in general from our founding fathers, to support the way interstate commerce is treated by the courts? |
|
January 22, 2018, 12:27 PM | #37 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
Quote:
And the courts have already said otherwise, so otherwise it is, until /unless another court says differently. The current interpretation of the law is, essentially, that anything that can be bought or sold "affects" interstate commerce. Whether you buy it, sell it, or don't do either. Many of us consider this a huge overreach by the govt., but until a court rules otherwise, it is the law. The law does not consider the amount of the effect on interstate commerce that you have when you don't buy or sell, only the fact that there is an effect by not doing so, and they have so ruled. Doesn't matter how large or how small the effect is, the courts have ruled that there IS an effect, and because there is an effect, the government has the legal authority to regulate it. our laws are full of situations where a legal restriction is placed on something because of what MIGHT be done with it. Especially in firearms laws and regulations. Lots of things fall under the law, not because of something you did (which actually does fall under the law) but what you could do, or might do, which, IF DONE would be a crime. The easiest place to see this principle in action is the laws defining what is, and is not a loaded firearm for transportation. The common sense definition, that a gun is loaded when it has ammunition in it, is applied, BUT ALSO applied ( in many places) is the legal definition that the gun is loaded if ammunition COULD be put in it. A gun can be legally loaded, and yet physically empty of ammunition at the same time! You could be breaking the law, not by what you did, or didn't do, but by what you could do. It don't seem right, but it is the law...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
January 22, 2018, 12:32 PM | #38 |
Member
Join Date: November 19, 2016
Posts: 19
|
|
January 22, 2018, 01:17 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
We all live in a country that has survived the Civil War, WWI, the great depression and WWII. Those are events that forged our identity as a single nation. Prior to the Civil War, people regarded themselves as Virginians or Ohioans, sort of the way Germans and Italians consider themselves citizens of sovereign nations even though lots of their laws are made in Brussels. In that context, having Congress tell people within a state that they may not grow more than X amount of wheat couldn't have made any sense. Commerce clause cases teach an important lesson. The COTUS grants to Congress a power to regulate a specific area, interstate, i.e. amongst the states, commerce, buying and selling and the attendant acts. However, people wanted Congress to regulate other things too, so Congress regulated them. When the laws were challenged, people on the Sup Ct who were friendly to the goal of the new regulations wrote opinions explaining why matters that themselves were not even arguably interstate commerce, e.g. growing feed for your own livestock, were nonetheless objects of congressional regulation under the commerce clause. The lesson this teaches is that the COTUS is not an unbridgeable barricade protecting rights from political defeat, and it isn't self executing. For 2d Am. advocates this means that the work of explaining the rights involved is an endless task.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 22, 2018 at 02:26 PM. |
|
January 22, 2018, 03:57 PM | #40 | |
Member
Join Date: November 19, 2016
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
It is as true back then as when zukiphile said it moments ago. |
|
January 23, 2018, 07:48 PM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,149
|
It runs counter to the idea of "State's Rights".
If forces states to adopt laws the majority of their citizens do not want, which many would find objectionable. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment can be subject to certain regulations. Forcing California to in effect, adopt Vermont's laws on concealed weapons is little different than forcing Utah to adopt California's stance on the sale of alcoholic beverages or telling Texas they should have to treat residents of Massachusetts as if they were in Boston when they wanted an abortion in Texas (because a briefly held majority in congress says so). |
January 23, 2018, 08:08 PM | #42 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
|
|
January 23, 2018, 08:24 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Location: Bowling Green, Ohio
Posts: 110
|
If one accepts the fact that the US Constitution applies to all US citizens no matter which state they reside in, or travel through, and that the 2nd Amendment of said Constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed", therefore the states have no authority to infringe on that right.
Words mean things. Bob NRA Endowment Member |
January 23, 2018, 11:10 PM | #44 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
I agree, words mean things. The trouble is, that the same words can mean different things to different people, or be held to mean different things at different times.
If, for instance, if you believe that those rights and restrictions mentioned in the Constitution and federal law apply only to federal law, then this would also be true.. If one accepts the fact that the US Constitution applies to all US citizens no matter which state they reside in, or travel through, and that the 2nd Amendment of said Constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed", therefore only the states have the authority to infringe on that right. The Second Amendment is actually a rather poor choice to use as an example in this case, because the Federal Government itself has violated the "shall not be infringed" language numerous times. Tell me how a federal govt that doesn't follow its own laws has the moral authority to tell a state government that they cannot follow their own state laws. The fact that the US Federal govt won the Civil War isn't quite enough...at least, not to me. No matter what some might wish, we do NOT live in a one tier system. Each level of govt has levels of authority and the legal right to them. Got any state law you don't like? Check and see if there is a corresponding federal law. If yes, then demand the fed force the state to do away with their law (its unnecessary..) if no, demand the Fed force the state to do away with their law, (its unnecessary).... see any problem with that???
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 24, 2018, 07:12 AM | #45 | |
Member
Join Date: November 19, 2016
Posts: 19
|
Quote:
U.S. Supreme Court -- Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore (1833) We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. U.S. Supreme Court -- United States v. Cruikshank (1875) The First Amendment to the Constitution, prohibiting Congress from abridging the right to assemble and petition, was not intended to limit the action of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National Government alone. It left the authority of the States unimpaired ... Since the late 1800s, the Supreme Court has been ruling that the 14th Amendment (something that did not exist when the Bill of Rights was authored) extends the Bill of Rights to all levels of government through the equal rights provision. It is called "the Doctrine of Incorporation." While I do not believe the 14th Amendment intended the Bill of Rights to be applied to the states, reality forces me to admit that the Supreme Court ruling is the law of the land. The ruling being what the ruling is, then the 2nd Amendment modified by the 14th Amendment prohibits the states and localities from disarming their citizenry. The Robert's Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010) SPECIFICALLY extended the 2nd Amendment to the states and localities through the Doctrine of Incorporation. |
|
January 24, 2018, 08:11 AM | #46 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,817
|
Quote:
Words do mean things, but may not mean what you think they mean. I wrote a Federal Constitutional Primer a few years back. I'll suggest that you read the section on incorporation.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
January 24, 2018, 09:34 AM | #47 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Gonzales v. Raich raised the issue of whether the commerce clause gave Congress the power to effectively prohibit marijuana cultivation and use even though CA had allowed law allowing cultivation and consumption. I think widespread MJ use is a real problem an oppose its normalization. Brilliant men for whom I have great respect argued on behalf of the government in that case. They saw the danger of MJ is so great that Congress must have the power to regulate it. (The argument I recall from the time was that denying Congress intrastate control would effectively deny Congress interstate control). These same men are also proponents of constitutionally limited government. I give that context to illustrate the lure of federal power even for smart, good and well intentioned people. As much as I don't want to see MJ normalized, that opinion shouldn't overcome a constitutional limit, yet it did. I see the same temptation of over-reach in the congressionally mandated reciprocity issue. More liberal carry laws are a good thing, something worth arguing about. It just isn't worth doing the wrong way.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; January 24, 2018 at 11:19 AM. |
|
January 24, 2018, 11:56 AM | #48 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
If you take the argument to its absurd extreme, Congress should not pass a national reciprocity law. Instead, congress should make a law that abolishes ALL permits. (Since that would be "equal treatment under the law". If one state, or more don't require a permit, none should.
And, while they're at it, go ahead and abolish all state governments as well. There's no point to them anymore, Federalize EVERYTHING!!!! And, why not?, since the concept of "sovereign states" is apparently an obsolete political concept. Maybe keep State Governors, as figureheads...but absolutely disband all state legislatures, they're not needed. All state employees would become Federal employees, all state revenue would go to the Federal govt. Think of the benefits, no more confusing and costly requirement that differ from state to state. ABOUT EVERYTHING! Your Detroit car no longer costs more because it has to meet the CA emission standards, only the Federal standards. IF states are actually nothing more than bureaucratic districts, subdivisions of the Federal Government, in fact, why not?? It would be more efficient. And, once that's done, and the Fed is the ONLY government, then we can dissolve the Federal Congress, too, since its members are elected by the states, and state choices and decisions no longer matter. And there would be little need for a Supreme Court, either. All we need is a good, strong Executive branch, to collect the taxes, and make all those pesky decisions for us, everyone would be under exactly the same laws and regulations, everywhere in the country, We should all work for this! It would be a victory for common sense, a victory for equality, A victory for the rights of the people, all under one central uniform authority! We should praise the ideal!! HAIL VICTORY!!!!!! Seig Heil!!!!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
January 24, 2018, 12:34 PM | #49 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
44, to be clear, I am not celebrating sucessful Congressional over-reach, but noting it's reality.
Quote:
Quote:
The power to regulate interstate commerce makes sense even where states are semi-sovereign. To abhor misapplication of the power is not the same as decrying the legitimate exercise of the granted power.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
January 24, 2018, 01:41 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2018
Location: Bowling Green, Ohio
Posts: 110
|
If the SCOTUS has defined the 2nd amendment as an individual right, as I understand it, why are the privileges of that right altered by one's state of residence?
Bob |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|