Do states have a right to flout 2A entitlements based on 10th amendment stipulations?

[LateForLunch]

'Not sure this is in the right category but the Mod Squad can move it of course if it's not.

This is a continuation of an exchange that started on the Scalise shooting thread that Mod2 locked because it had run its course.

When last we checked in on our hero (LFL) he was trying to get a substantive response from another poster who was seemingly being evasive. So let's join our fighters in the Arena of Ideas and may the best argument win. After moaning, kvetching, self-promoting and wallowing in both the role of aggrieved victim and of triumphant fearless upholder of Higher Standards in the face of laughably inferior people like me, (who disagree strongly with him), Jazzhead finally wrote:

"Federalism is not 'legalese'.  State sovereignty is not 'legalese'.  What is shocking is that so many so-called conservatives reject these concepts. 

Why should Pennsylvania be forced to adopt Texas' gun culture? "



LateForLunch responded:

"Putting aside legalistic argument of entitlements of government, it may be stipulated that the People have a right to the lowest possible violent crime rate. If it can be demonstrated that more prevalence of carrying of firearms by the general population has a direct effect of reducing the violent crime rate, then the People have a legal entitlement unless proscribed with specificity by law, to enjoy lower crime rates by virtue of the free and robust exercise of their entitlement to carry firearms.

If some of the citizens of one state or the other decide that they for whatever reason, want to restrict the ability of other free citizens to enjoy second amendment rights, then it is the ones seeking abridgement who acquire the burden of proof to enact a restriction on those rights, not the other way around.

And I get the idea about shouting being unnecessary, but I share the frustration with legalistic arguments which somehow seem to make the same case - that there exists in the Constitution some sort of (forgive me) "bitch's veto" embodied in states rights, wherein sovereignty issues somehow supersede Constitutional declarations whenever some grievance arises from disgruntled citizens with hoplophobic, Statist inclinations in regard to Constitutionally-cemented 2A freedoms."

Hitting my stopwatch and awaiting Jazzhead's substantive response NOW!

[Doug Loss]

The answer is very clear.  The 2nd Amendment states that the federal government may not abridge the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 14th Amendment extended this proscription to state and local governments.  Therefore, there's nothing about "gun culture" to answer.  The question is, can either Pennsylvania or Texas restrict the right to keep and bear arms?  The answer is, "No."  End of story.  There's nothing to debate.

[thackney]

My unanswered question from the same thread:

Quote from: Jazzhead on June 15, 2017, 05:05:17 PM

The issue is federalism.   The RKBA is not a right to open carry.  Each state can and does make that determination on its own.

I can see the argument (but not agree) that RKBA does not include conceal carry, but open carry and bear arms is one and the same.

Which rights in the first amendment do you find appropriate for a state to require a permit, fee and background check before a citizen can perform?

@Jazzhead

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

While I know I will regret posting on this thread...

Amendments and rights aren't absolute IMO, you don't have an absolute right to free speech (for example yelling fire in a crowded theater and all that). While I would consider myself a fairly strong supporter of gun rights, I don't have a problem with individual states setting their own regulations on them. Which does not mean i support or do not support any particular statewide restrictions on them.

[Jazzhead]

May the record show that (on the closed thread) I asked for a cite to any case in the last 200 years that holds that the RKBA precludes a state from regulating open carry.  None was provided.   

There is no such case.  States and localities have traditionally regulated whether an individual can openly carry a gun in the public square.  Such regulation has nothing to do with the RKBA's focus on self-defense, especially in the home. 

There is no right or wrong answer about what produces the "lowest crime rate".   That's a policy decision to be made at the local level.  It is hardly unconstitutional for a state to conclude that it doesn't want its streets to resemble the Wild West.   

And it is NOT conservative to insist on a federal law that would undercut the states' sovereignty to decide for themselves whether to permit open carry in the public square.   

[thackney]

May the record show that (on the closed thread) I asked for a cite to any case in the last 200 years that holds that the RKBA precludes a state from regulating open carry.  None was provided.   

There is no such case.  States and localities have traditionally regulated whether an individual can openly carry a gun in the public square.  Such regulation has nothing to do with the RKBA's focus on self-defense, especially in the home. 

There is no right or wrong answer about what produces the "lowest crime rate".   That's a policy decision to be made at the local level.  It is hardly unconstitutional for a state to conclude that it doesn't want its streets to resemble the Wild West.   

And it is NOT conservative to insist on a federal law that would undercut the states' sovereignty to decide for themselves whether to permit open carry in the public square.

And at one time slavery was legally supported as well, until enough people stood up and fought that surpression of liberty.

[Cripplecreek]

“Every Person has the right to keep  and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.”

Michigan Constitution, Art 1, Sec. 6

[Jazzhead]

And at one time slavery was legally supported as well, until enough people stood up and fought that surpression of liberty.

It is not a "suppression of liberty" to be subject to laws you don't like.  Work at the state and local level to change such laws.  What I oppose is the decidedly un-Conservative attempt to impose a federal law on the states that usurps their sovereignty and requires all states to conform to Texas-style gun culture. 

Conservatives,  I've always been led to believe, supported federalism and state sovereignty, especially with respect to the health and safety of their citizens.   Sure, the Second Amendment protects our individual rights as citizens  of the nation, but two centuries of jurisprudence have NEVER found that the states are prohibited from regulating open carry in the public square.   

[LateForLunch]

It is not a "suppression of liberty" to be subject to laws you don't like.  Work at the state and local level to change such laws.  What I oppose is the decidedly un-Conservative attempt to impose a federal law on the states that usurps their sovereignty and requires all states to conform to Texas-style gun culture.

I'm going to call you on one point. The so-called "Wild West" was not a place of excessive violence because of open-carry of firearms, but rather because scarcity and reliability of ethical, fair law enforcement personnel required that people without professional training or direct oversight/ accountability  enforced the law themselves in posses

[Jazzhead]

I'm going to call you on one point. The so-called "Wild West" was not a place of excessive violence because of open-carry of firearms, but rather because scarcity and reliability of ethical, fair law enforcement personnel required that people without professional training or direct oversight/ accountability  enforced the law themselves in posses

I don't care that you defend the Wild West.  The point is that the States have the sovereignty to decide whether to permit open carry.  Good policy or bad policy isn't the point.  It is the inherent right of the State to determine their own laws affecting public safety (ALWAYS a traditional state function) that is at issue.

BTW, it is refreshing to take the conservative position against a phalanx of liberals!   

[Doug Loss]

I don't care that you defend the Wild West.  The point is that the States have the sovereignty to decide whether to permit open carry.  Good policy or bad policy isn't the point.  It is the inherent right of the State to determine their own laws affecting public safety (ALWAYS a traditional state function) that is at issue.

BTW, it is refreshing to take the conservative position against a phalanx of liberals!   

The next time you do that will be the first.

[INVAR]

It is not a "suppression of liberty" to be subject to laws you don't like.  Work at the state and local level to change such laws.  What I oppose is the decidedly un-Conservative attempt to impose a federal law on the states that usurps their sovereignty and requires all states to conform to Texas-style gun culture. 

But it is your hypocrisy on the subject of federalism that has me laughing my ass off at you.  Because you steadfastly insist upon IMPOSING San-Francisco/Californication homosexual culture upon rural and God-fearing Christians with a gun pointed to our heads and our businesses and liberty forfeit if we do not violate our consciences and religion in order to serve, promote and celebrate homosexuality.

So you can pound sand on your insipid and stupid assertions about your fidelity to 'federalism'.   

You believe in no such thing unless it is to IMPOSE liberal/deviancy.

Which is what we have come to expect from your discourse.

[INVAR]

The point is that the States have the sovereignty to decide whether to permit open carry.  Good policy or bad policy isn't the point.  It is the inherent right of the State to determine their own laws affecting public safety (ALWAYS a traditional state function) that is at issue.

The point is which you vehemently disagree with convoluted twists of logic, is that the States have the sovereignty to decide whether or not to recognize homosexual marriages or to make abortion illegal. It is the inherent right of the State to determine their own laws recognizing and condoning perverted behaviors as protected castes that is at issue.

[driftdiver]

I don't care that you defend the Wild West.  The point is that the States have the sovereignty to decide whether to permit open carry.  Good policy or bad policy isn't the point.  It is the inherent right of the State to determine their own laws affecting public safety (ALWAYS a traditional state function) that is at issue.

BTW, it is refreshing to take the conservative position against a phalanx of liberals!   

@Jazzhead
You're not advocating for states rights, your advocating against the second amendment.   HUGE Difference.    You don't advocate that the states should be allowed to ignore Federal Gun Laws do you?   No you only advocate for States when it allows greater restrictions then the federal laws.

[thackney]

@Jazzhead

Which rights in the first amendment do you find appropriate for a state to require a permit, fee and background check before a citizen can perform?

[Bigun]

The answer is very clear.  The 2nd Amendment states that the federal government may not abridge the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 14th Amendment extended this proscription to state and local governments.  Therefore, there's nothing about "gun culture" to answer.  The question is, can either Pennsylvania or Texas restrict the right to keep and bear arms?  The answer is, "No."  End of story.  There's nothing to debate.

B I N G O ! ! !   

[Bigun]

The next time you do that will be the first.

LOL!  QFT!

[Sighlass]

For me it is simple, the 2nd was strongly worded "shall not be infringed" for a very direct reason, the framers didn't mince words. This renting your right to carry in some states is an abridgement to rights of American citizens.

[Bigun]

For me it is simple, the 2nd was strongly worded "shall not be infringed" for a very direct reason, the framers didn't mince words. This renting your right to carry in some states is an abridgement to rights of American citizens.

I don't know how they could have stated it any more clearly.

[INVAR]

For me it is simple, the 2nd was strongly worded "shall not be infringed" for a very direct reason, the framers didn't mince words. This renting your right to carry in some states is an abridgement to rights of American citizens.

JH's position on this subject is akin to justifying a state's restrictions on any political speech or expression in public that is favorable of Trump or Conservatives, because in his twisted view of logic, mandating equal application of the 1st Amendment "usurps their sovereignty and requires all states to conform to red-state-style Conservative culture. 

He is only for Federalism when it restricts gun rights, imposes homosexual acceptance and mandates access to abortion upon the people.

[Cyber Liberty]

BTW, it is refreshing to take the conservative position against a phalanx of liberals!   

I must have missed something.  Did somebody die and leave to you the right to declare what is "conservative?"  This is where you skate on the thinnest of ice, @Jazzhead.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I must have missed something.  Did somebody die and leave to you the right to declare what is "conservative?"  This is where you skate on the thinnest of ice, @Jazzhead.

There's no shortage of loudmouths on this forum who consider themselves the authority on what or what isn't conservative.

[TomSea]

The answer is very clear.  The 2nd Amendment states that the federal government may not abridge the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 14th Amendment extended this proscription to state and local governments.  Therefore, there's nothing about "gun culture" to answer.  The question is, can either Pennsylvania or Texas restrict the right to keep and bear arms?  The answer is, "No."  End of story.  There's nothing to debate.

And how does one define arms? Does it include shoulder-fired missiles? Because as said, Scalia questioned that. Or would we be talking about the muskets they had in the days of Thomas Jefferson? Is it a question of Constitutional originalism? Constructionist?  So, one should be able to walk the streets with a sub-machine gun?

[skeeter]

The answer is very clear.  The 2nd Amendment states that the federal government may not abridge the pre-existing right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The 14th Amendment extended this proscription to state and local governments.  Therefore, there's nothing about "gun culture" to answer.  The question is, can either Pennsylvania or Texas restrict the right to keep and bear arms?  The answer is, "No."  End of story.  There's nothing to debate.

Correct.

There isn't a better example than this of how it is in the interest of some to obfuscate and confuse what is a very clear, unambiguous concept. As long as confusion reigns they are able to set themselves up as the arbiters and final word on whats true. And that suits the 'progressive' just fine.

[TomSea]

I don't care that you defend the Wild West.  The point is that the States have the sovereignty to decide whether to permit open carry.  Good policy or bad policy isn't the point.  It is the inherent right of the State to determine their own laws affecting public safety (ALWAYS a traditional state function) that is at issue.

BTW, it is refreshing to take the conservative position against a phalanx of liberals!   

 

Good answer.