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

[INVAR]

IMHO people that want to cite the ninth or tenth where gun control are concerned aren't really interested in states rights...they just look at those two amendments as a convenient tool to impose top down federal control in an area that should be hands off per the Constitution.

BINGO!!!!!!!!

We have a winner!

I simply find it amusing and revealing that enumerated rights are argued to be open to 'reasonable restrictions' and behaviors NOT enumerated but made a 'right' by 5 Activist justices are inviolable and shall not be infringed - as in "Bake the damned cake!'

[txradioguy]

Apparently he had you and me confused.  He called TX my state, but I haven't lived there since 1980.  Besides, I like the gun laws in AZ better, no offense.

None taken.  AZ has done well to honor the 2A as well.

I'd love to see Jazz explain how gun violence and crime rates are higher in the areas that restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms like he desires imposed on the rest of us and it's lower in the areas where people are allowed to open and conceal carry their personally owned fire arms with minimal restrictions.

[INVAR]

I'd love to see Jazz explain how gun violence and crime rates are higher in the areas that restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms like he desires imposed on the rest of us and it's lower in the areas where people are allowed to open and conceal carry their personally owned fire arms with minimal restrictions.

Not an issue he will argue without self-immolating his entire position by his own hand.  He will likely instead argue the 'larger issue' of federalism in regards to restricting the keeping and bearing of arms.

Which has been shown to be a hypocritical position in the argument he is making as he has demonstrated no real featly or regard to Federalism except in this case.

[txradioguy]

Not an issue he will argue without self-immolating his entire position by his own hand.  He will likely instead argue the 'larger issue' of federalism in regards to restricting the keeping and bearing of arms.

Which has been shown to be a hypocritical position in the argument he is making as he has demonstrated no real featly or regard to Federalism except in this case.

Even the big government types amongst the Framers and the Founders like Hamilton understood and supported the clear language of the 2nd Amendment.

Gun grabbers can argue that it's about "Federalism" all day long...but they'd be wrong.

[Cyber Liberty]

None taken.  AZ has done well to honor the 2A as well.

I'd love to see Jazz explain how gun violence and crime rates are higher in the areas that restrict the ownership and carrying of firearms like he desires imposed on the rest of us and it's lower in the areas where people are allowed to open and conceal carry their personally owned fire arms with minimal restrictions.

He'd say it's either beside the point, or these jurisdictions have strict gun laws because of the crime.  It would become a chicken vs egg argument.  At least, that's what I'd say.

[Doug Loss]

He'd say it's either beside the point, or these jurisdictions have strict gun laws because of the crime.  It would become a chicken vs egg argument.  At least, that's what I'd say.

I'm sure those jusridictions have strict gun laws because of crime.  It's a positive feedback loop, brought on by a complete misunderstanding of human nature.  And the standard leftist reasoning of, "You mean it didn't work again?  We must not be doing it hard enough yet!  Let's turn it up even higher!"

[Cyber Liberty]

I'm sure those jusridictions have strict gun laws because of crime.  It's a positive feedback loop, brought on by a complete misunderstanding of human nature.  And the standard leftist reasoning of, "You mean it didn't work again?  We must not be doing it hard enough yet!  Let's turn it up even higher!"

 

Yup!

[bigheadfred]

You can win some arguments. Some court cases. Pass some legislation. Take away the guns, or the sticks.

But you can't change the law.

Self defense is a natural law. It is in your DNA.

That is the hidden agenda, people. Effing with your dna. IMO. That is the only way they can "win". That is the only way they can change the law.

So if they come for your stones, people, bash them with a rock. I mean, fight to the death.

[thackney]

Apparently he had you and me confused.  He called TX my state, but I haven't lived there since 1980.  Besides, I like the gun laws in AZ better, no offense.

As a Texan, I'm hoping we eventually end up with the gun laws of Vermont.

[Jazzhead]

I admit this one is my fault.  He was busy touting federalism as a state's right to reject Texas gun culture from existing in his state of PA.

I pointed out that he rejects federalism when it comes to imposing San Francisco homosexual culture on the rest of the nation.

Hypocrisy.

That is what I was pointing out.

No hypocrisy.   Different issue.  Marriage equality implicates the Constitution's equal protection requirement.   The equivalent to the gun issue under discussion would be a state law that permits open carry, but not for gays (or blacks, or Jews, etc.)     When the state affords valuable rights and protections,  those rights and protections must be extended equally under the law.   

When you object to marriage equality, what you should be objecting to is the state recognizing the institution at all.    The state can't grant special rights and privileges to Christians that marry, while denying them to agnostics or,  as you insist, gays.   

The open carry issue has nothing to do with equal protection.  Laws regulating (or not regulating) open carry apply equally to all who are present within a state's or constituent community's borders.   When a Texan travels to Philadelphia,  he is subject to Philly's laws,  just as a Philadelphian who travels to Texas is subject to Texas's laws.   That's federalism,  that's state sovereignty.  Anyone who calls himself or herself a conservative ought to agree with this fundamental principle.   

I understand that the objection is that, well, the Second Amendment is just special.  Well, it isn't.   All of the Constitution's enumerated rights are subject to reasonable regulation.   Christian bakers aren't exempt from nondiscrimination laws of general application.   Gun owners aren't exempt from state laws regulating the carrying of arms in the public square.

The Second Amendment's reach is well demonstrated in the Heller case.  There, the District of Columbia effectively banned the ownership of handguns, even in the home.    There, state/local regulation went too far,  denying the District's citizens their natural right to protect hearth and home.    But open carry in the public square is not a natural right.  Open carry has traditionally been subject to local regulation,  and no one here can point to any jurisprudence that says otherwise.  Not one single example!    Case closed, folks -  you may view Philly's rules to be unwise, but my community has the right to address public safety in the way we see fit.   As does Texas.   That's what makes America great - we are a federation of sovereign states.   

I think voluntary reciprocity with respect to concealed carry permits is sound policy.   But reciprocity is not compelled by the Second Amendment.   

[LateForLunch]

No hypocrisy.   Different issue.  Marriage equality implicates the Constitution's equal protection requirement.   The equivalent to the gun issue under discussion would be a state law that permits open carry, but not for gays (or blacks, or Jews, etc.)     When the state affords valuable rights and protections,  those rights and protections must be extended equally under the law.   

When you object to marriage equality, what you should be objecting to is the state recognizing the institution at all.    The state can't grant special rights and privileges to Christians that marry, while denying them to agnostics or,  as you insist, gays.   

The open carry issue has nothing to do with equal protection.  Laws regulating (or not regulating) open carry apply equally to all who are present within the state's borders.   When a Texan travels to Philadelphia,  he is subject to Philly's laws,  just as a Philadelphian who travels to Texas is subject to Texas's laws.   That's federalism,  that's state sovereignty.  Anyone who calls himself or herself a conservative ought to agree with that.   

I understand that the objection is that, well, the Second Amendment is just special.  Well, it isn't.   All of the Constitution's enumerated rights are subject to reasonable regulation.   Christians bakers aren't exempt from nondiscrimination laws of general application.   Gun owners aren't exempt from state laws regulating the carrying of arms in the public square.

The Second Amendment's reach is well demonstrated in the Heller case.  There, the District of Columbia effectively banned the ownership of handguns, even in the home.    There, state/local regulation went too far,  denying the District's citizens their natural right to protect hearth and home.    But open carry in the public square is not a natural right.  Open carry has traditionally been subject to local regulation,  and no one here can point to any jurisprudence that says otherwise.  Not one single example!    Case closed, folks -  you may view Philly's rules to be unwise, but my community has the right to address public safety in the way we see fit.   As does Texas.   That's what makes America great - we are a federation of sovereign states.   

I think voluntary reciprocity with respect to concealed carry permits is sound policy.   But reciprocity is not compelled by the Second Amendment.

Your words stand on their heads. Social assistance or preferential treatment is not an entitlement or (as you state it) a right. So there is no Constitutional protection issue for anything having to do with marriage. There is no guarantee of the right to marry and be afforded the status as such.There is however, a Constitutional entitlement to keep and bear arms.

So the comparison fails. Maybe you should launch another thread about homosexual marriage since you seem very intensely focused on it.

[Jazzhead]

Even the big government types amongst the Framers and the Founders like Hamilton understood and supported the clear language of the 2nd Amendment.

Gun grabbers can argue that it's about "Federalism" all day long...but they'd be wrong.

There is no more fundamental issue in the American experiment than federalism.   We are a union of sovereign states.   The federal Constitution makes clear that rights not expressly enumerated, or accorded to the federal government,  are the province of the several states.   The Second Amendment only trumps the Tenth Amendment to the extent the states seek to infringe upon the gun right.   Regulation regarding open carry in the public square is not such infringement.   200 years of jurisprudence is the proof of that.   

[Jazzhead]

Your words stand on their heads. Social assistance or preferential treatment is not an entitlement or (as you state it) a right. So there is no Constitutional protection issue for anything having to do with marriage. There is no guarantee of the right to marry and be afforded the status as such.There is however, a Constitutional entitlement to keep and bear arms.

So the comparison fails. Maybe you should launch another thread about homosexual marriage since you seem very intensely focused on it.

C'mon, LFL, I know you're smarter than that.   I never said that there's a "guarantee of the right to marry".   Equal protection doesn't exist where no law exists.  Equal protection is a brake upon the arbitrary power of government.  No state is compelled to afford any special rights or protections to couples who marry.   But if a state CHOOSES to afford such special rights and protections to married couples (as all do),  then such rights and protections must be afforded on a equal basis.   

Hence a state cannot issue concealed carry permits to Christians but not Muslims, for example.  But I am unaware of any state law regulating guns that violates equal protection.   Perhaps there are examples and you can enlighten me.   

If you want to open your own thread on gay marriage, go right ahead.   I didn't raise the issue of marriage equality,  INVAR did, for the purpose of attacking me as a hypocrite.   You would deny me the right to respond?  Go pound sand, sir.   

[txradioguy]

There is no more fundamental issue in the American experiment than federalism.   We are a union of sovereign states.   The federal Constitution makes clear that rights not expressly enumerated, or accorded to the federal government,  are the province of the several states.   The Second Amendment only trumps the Tenth Amendment to the extent the states seek to infringe upon the gun right.   

And the Federal Constitution also explicitly says that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say it can be infringed upon if a state doesn't want people to own guns or carry them openly.  It doesn't say that it can't be infringed upon unless a state decides to excessively tax people who buy guns...or bullets or certain types of guns...or suppressors or scopes etc.

It clearly and simply says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.".

Period.  End of sentence.  End of discussion.

Regulation regarding open carry in the public square is not such infringement.

Yes it is.  It is preventing someone from legally carrying a firearm the legally purchased.  The 2nd Amendment gives them the right to carry it whether openly or concealed.   It specifically prohibits a state from denying a person that right.

200 years of jurisprudence is the proof of that.

Care to cite the case law?

[txradioguy]

Marriage equality implicates the Constitution's equal protection requirement.

You're as factually and legally wrong on the 14th Amendment  as you are on the 2nd Amendment.

[Jazzhead]

Care to cite the case law?

I've asked multiple time for any that supports your position.  None has been offered, and I doubt any will.    States and local governments regulate open carry all the time - it's common, it's traditional, and it goes to the fundamental role of state and local government to be responsible for public safety.   

 You're making things up as you go along.  End of discussion.   

[txradioguy]

I've asked multiple time for any that supports your position.  None has been offered, and I doubt any will.    States and local governments regulate open carry all the time - it's common, it's traditional, and it goes to the fundamental role of state and local government to be responsible for public safety.

Don't take this @ss kicking personally.



United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

Miller v. Texas (1894)

Burton v. Sills (1985)

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

McDonald v Chicago (2010) t


In all of the above cases...and especially in McDonald he Supreme Court invalidates Chicago's handgun ban and holds the Second Amendment applies to the states.

You're making things up as you go along.  End of discussion.

You've just been made a complete and utter fool.

Not that it will stop you from continuing to display your ignorance to the world.

[txradioguy]

Now for a little left hook to go with the straight right I just threw...there's this:

Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822, Ky.)[12] addressed the right to bear arms pursuant to Art. 10, Sec. 23 of the Second Constitution of Kentucky (1799 "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned."

Aymette v. State, 21Tenn. 154, 156 (1840), In Aymette, the Tennessee Supreme Court construed the guarantee in Tennessee’s 1834 Constitution that “ ‘the free white men of this State, have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.’ ” Explaining that the provision was adopted with the same goals as the Federal Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The Georgia Supreme Court ruled in Nunn v. Georgia (1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)) that a state law ban on handguns was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[20] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said Nunn, "Perfectly captured the in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause."

People v. Aguilar held that a total ban on carrying firearms outside the home violated the Second Amendment and was unconstitutional. Applying Heller, McDonald, and Moore v. Madigan (a Seventh Circuit decision), the Illinois Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Aguilar, stating that the right to self-defense was at the core of the Second Amendment.

[Cyber Liberty]

You messed up, TRG. He asked for "a single cite."   

[txradioguy]

You messed up, TRG. He asked for "a single cite."   

Oops...my bad. 

[Jazzhead]

Swing and a miss, Txradioguy.   

None of those cases address the issue.  I'm not disputing that the 2A applies to the states.  I don't think the Founders intended it to, but the case law clearly says otherwise.   What I've been saying is that there is no case that says the 2A trumps a state or local government's right to regulate open carry in the public square .

That's because public safety is a traditional state or local function.   Open carry in the public square has nothing to do with the gun right protected by the 2A.  If you disagree, then cite me a case that is ON POINT.     

[Jazzhead]

You messed up, TRG. He asked for "a single cite."   

And I'm still asking. 

[driftdiver]

Swing and a miss, Txradioguy.   

None of those cases address the issue.  I'm not disputing that the 2A applies to the states.  I don't think the Founders intended it to, but the case law clearly says otherwise.   What I've been saying is that there is no case that says the 2A trumps a state or local government's right to regulate open carry in the public square .

That's because public safety is a traditional state or local function.   Open carry in the public square has nothing to do with the gun right protected by the 2A.  If you disagree, then cite me a case that is ON POINT.     

@Jazzhead
Is that how our Constitution works?   We have to have a specific case to allow a right to be exercised?   Do we need a specific case allowing that right to be exercised in every circumstance?     A case to allow a right to be exercised in the supermarket vs a gas station.   

No, of course thats not how it works.   Case law is sparse because for most of our history as a nation the possession of firearms was no big deal EXCEPT in a couple of locations.   Now that those who oppose individual freedoms have gotten more organized they are trying to change the language and interpretation of the law.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".   Its really not that complicated. 

[txradioguy]

Swing and a miss, Txradioguy.

More like knocked it out of the park.

I don't think 

And therein lies your problem.  You should have quit right there.

Case in point.

Open carry in the public square has nothing to do with the gun right protected by the 2A.

"...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

No where in there does it say unless it's open carry in the public square.  That's a part you make up because you want it to mean that.

You do realize that when this was written the ONLY way to carry firearms of the say was openly on ones belt or slung over ones shoulder don't you?

Surely you're not THAT obtuse.

[EC]

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".   Its really not that complicated.

Actually, since US law, including the Constitution, is based on English Common Law it is arguable that the second amendment requires every able bodied adult male to bear arms and to be familiar with and trained in their usage.