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

[INVAR]

I don't see the open carry issue as a matter of equal protection. 

Thank you for admitting your blatant hypocrisy as it pertains to Federalism, which you demonstrated is just a tool you advocate for use of prohibiting those rights enumerated that frighten you, and imposing prohibitions on those rights that actually ARE enumerated.

[Doug Loss]

It's my personal belief that, as written, the 2nd, 10th, and 14th do not prevent a state from totally banning guns.  And another totally allowing them.

From that, I can only assume that you are unable to read for content.  They couldn't be clearer.

[rodamala]

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

Michigan Constitution, Art 1, Sec. 6

Pennsylvania:  The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.  Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

[bigheadfred]

What is the majority public opinion on open carry in the U.S.A?

[Cyber Liberty]

What is the majority public opinion on open carry in the U.S.A?

I hate polls.

"Do you approve of gun laws that let people waltz about with sub-machineguns?"  "Should we jail people who waltz about with death-dealing guns?"  "Should we save our children by outlawing all guns?"

Aw Hell yeah.

[bigheadfred]

Oh. Found one. This is for illustration purposes only.

YouGov Poll: Majority of Americans Support Open Carry of Guns

What does 10A say? ...to the states, or the people...

If I look at the Great Unificator--2A and add in People that sets the states, with their pretty little surrey with the infringement on top, in the barn .

AAAAnnnnndddd......When last we checked in on our hero...that is so beautiful I couldn't stop laughing and say something until now.

[INVAR]

I find it simply amazing to read the efforts that liberals disguised as Conservatives attempt to make in regards to pushing the Leftist agenda.

ENUMERATED rights, ratified and in existence as part of the Constitution are deemed to be open to infringement, regulation, suppression, banishment, taxed and limited under the auspices of 'Federalism' because the "gun culture" of Texas it is said by our resident Liberal, cannot extend to Liberal havens like New Jersey or Pennsylvania.

HOWEVER, the pretend champion of Federalism insists that "Rights" crafted out of thin air to protect perverted BEHAVIOR by 5 Justices in black robes WITHOUT any consent or ratification are 'equal protection' issues able to be imposed by force and penalty without any regard to 'federalism' because the faggot culture of San Fransisco can be imposed upon Conservative havens like Texas.

Hypocrisy of the highest order.

Enumerated rights are open for regulation and infringement that he doesn't like under 'federalism', and perverted behaviors he does like he cheerleads imposition and insists federalism does not apply.

Typical Leftist argumentation.

[Sighlass]

I always believed the Federalist Papers #29 made it clear on the issue of "arms"... and what the general public are/were/is allowed to possess.

Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

Common sense would suggest nukes would be the bit where perhaps a "little inferior" would come to play, but yeah, if you want a tank, I don't see where it really is out of realms of what the framers allowed.

[Cyber Liberty]

I don't think there's a right to keep and bear bombs.  That's been settled since Guy Fawkes.

[Bigun]

I always believed the Federalist Papers #29 made it clear on the issue of "arms"... and what the general public are/were/is allowed to possess.

Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

Common sense would suggest nukes would be the bit where perhaps a "little inferior" would come to play, but yeah, if you want a tank, I don't see where it really is out of realms of what the framers allowed.

Yeah but what the hell would a guy who participated in writing the Constitution know about it?

[Sighlass]

I don't think there's a right to keep and bear bombs.  That's been settled since Guy Fawkes.

Little if at all inferior... and they had bombs back then. I don't see where it honestly prohibited them.

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition

[Cyber Liberty]

Little if at all inferior... and they had bombs back then. I don't see where it honestly prohibited them.

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition

I apply the "reasonable man" argument.  Would a reasonable person consider an indiscriminate bomb a protected armament?  A weapon of mass destruction is not covered under the Second Amendment.

[Sighlass]

I apply the "reasonable man" argument.  Would a reasonable person consider an indiscriminate bomb a protected armament?  A weapon of mass destruction is not covered under the Second Amendment.

I understand what you are saying, and no, I would not reasonable suggest people engage in bomb making for health reasons. But again, reasonable can also be weighed in balance by the foe you find yourself against. In all sincerity, if the US armed forces decide to use nukes against their own citizens then there really is no winning anyway.

You can have the last word (within reason of course)...

[Mod2]

Moved to appropriate category

[Smokin Joe]

I don't think there's a right to keep and bear bombs.  That's been settled since Guy Fawkes.

No one was carrying the bomb involved in the Gunpowder Plot. If someone was capable of doing that, they would not have needed a bomb!

[Sighlass]

I just want to drop this off for later reference for myself.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/the-second-amendment-is-not-your-gun-permit/

[Jazzhead]

That's a load of crap and if you have any awareness at all you must know it.  My absurd reading is called "original public meaning" and is a well-known method of applying the Constitution.  Keep peddling your nonsensical attempts to prove that black is white, wet is dry, and the plain words in the Constitution mean something other than what they say.  We'll all accord your attempts all the consideration they're due--none.

You can bluster spittle all over your shirt,  but there's still the matter of no court recognizing your position,   The states can regulate open carry, according to their elected officials' best judgment.   That's American - we're a union of sovereign states.   Don't be afraid as a conservative to agree with me on this.   

[driftdiver]

You can bluster spittle all over your shirt,  but there's still the matter of no court recognizing your position,   The states can regulate open carry, according to their elected officials' best judgment.   That's American - we're a union of sovereign states.   Don't be afraid as a conservative to agree with me on this.

@Jazzhead

Give us a court case that says states specifically can regulate open carry. 

Or is it because it's never really been tested in court.  Because until fairly recently it wasn't a big deal.  Only over the last 20 years has it become uncommon for people to openly carry guns in their cars.  Openly carry as a normal part of their day.

No, the prohibition against open carry is recent.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

I just want to drop this off for later reference for myself.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/the-second-amendment-is-not-your-gun-permit/

Thank you for bringing the 10th Amendment Center to my attention.

Now I'll know better than to even bother clicking on a link to Any of their or author Kelly Sladick's idiot, wishful thinking commentary.

The commentators took Ms Lackwit out to the woodshed and gave her just what she went begging for.

[bigheadfred]

I just want to drop this off for later reference for myself.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/the-second-amendment-is-not-your-gun-permit/

I took a look. Thanks.

@To-Whose-Benefit?

Some good comments over there.

[bigheadfred]

You can bluster spittle all over your shirt,  but there's still the matter of no court recognizing your position,   The states can regulate open carry, according to their elected officials' best judgment.   That's American - we're a union of sovereign states.   Don't be afraid as a conservative to agree with me on this.

In regards to Idaho concerning the bolded sentence above.

That is not the case here in Idaho. They can regulate concealed carry.

[LateForLunch]

NOTE on WMD and heavy weapons.

Political officials interpreted the Greatest Common Good and General Welfare of the people being to proscribe the private, unlicensed ownersip of heavy weapons in the general population. A light armament is described as non-explosive, non-incendiary single loading or semi-automatic-loading firearms of any caliber up to .50 caliber. Any firearm sold legally in the nation must conform to that criteria. A heavy weapon is any fully-automatic, explosive, incendiary or armor-penetrating device or weapon. The idea after the Civil War was to return the nation to a peaceful, cooperative mode without allowing small, disgruntled factions from easily obtaining the means to victimise/disrupt the civil society.*

It was not necessary for a person to have the right to own an artillery piece or store it in their backyard. The civil authorities were dedicated to peaceful, lawful transmission and administration of order. There was no foreseeable, legitimate purpose for the population to take up the role of soldier because of the permanent military's existence.

So, they passed laws to confine ownership and operations of heavy weaponry to the federal, state and local governments.

Light arms are another matter altogether.

* Legal things like capital equipment, chemicals, industrial materials may be transformed into a heavy weapons - a crime in itself. Once trasnformed, they become illegal but not before. A passenger jet under normal control is a form of transportation. Under control of Mohamad Atta, it is a WMD. At bull dozer is a tool to clear a building site so that construction can begin, unless being driven by someone who wants to level an entire town by himself.

[Doug Loss]

NOTE on WMD and heavy weapons.

Political officials interpreted the Greatest Common Good and General Welfare of the people being to proscribe the private, unlicensed ownersip of heavy weapons in the general population. A light armament is described as non-explosive, non-incendiary single loading or semi-automatic-loading firearms of any caliber up to .50 caliber. Any firearm sold legally in the nation must conform to that criteria. A heavy weapon is any fully-automatic, explosive, incendiary or armor-penetrating device or weapon. The idea after the Civil War was to return the nation to a peaceful, cooperative mode without allowing small, disgruntled factions from easily obtaining the means to victimise/disrupt the civil society.*

It was not necessary for a person to have the right to own an artillery piece or store it in their backyard. The civil authorities were dedicated to peaceful, lawful transmission and administration of order. There was no foreseeable, legitimate purpose for the population to take up the role of soldier because of the permanent military's existence.

So, they passed laws to confine ownership and operations of heavy weaponry to the federal, state and local governments.

Light arms are another matter altogether.

* Legal things like capital equipment, chemicals, industrial materials may be transformed into a heavy weapons - a crime in itself. Once trasnformed, they become illegal but not before. A passenger jet under normal control is a form of transportation. Under control of Mohamad Atta, it is a WMD. At bull dozer is a tool to clear a building site so that construction can begin, unless being driven by someone who wants to level an entire town by himself.

Please note that that is exactly opposite the understanding of the Founders.  The existence of a "permanent military" was anathema to them.  And arms in the hands of the private citizenry equal or perhaps slightly inferior in quality to those in the hands of government forces was counted as a signal guarantee against tyranny.  That politicians gradually interpreted both these understandings out of existence is not something to be lauded; it's evidence that the political class was quite aware that their hold on power was only conditional and that they determined to remove those conditions from consideration.

[Cyber Liberty]

Please note that that is exactly opposite the understanding of the Founders.  The existence of a "permanent military" was anathema to them.  And arms in the hands of the private citizenry equal or perhaps slightly inferior in quality to those in the hands of government forces was counted as a signal guarantee against tyranny.  That politicians gradually interpreted both these understandings out of existence is not something to be lauded; it's evidence that the political class was quite aware that their hold on power was only conditional and that they determined to remove those conditions from consideration.

 

[INVAR]

Please note that that is exactly opposite the understanding of the Founders.  The existence of a "permanent military" was anathema to them.  And arms in the hands of the private citizenry equal or perhaps slightly inferior in quality to those in the hands of government forces was counted as a signal guarantee against tyranny.  That politicians gradually interpreted both these understandings out of existence is not something to be lauded; it's evidence that the political class was quite aware that their hold on power was only conditional and that they determined to remove those conditions from consideration.

 


"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book