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

[Cyber Liberty]

It seems to me that most, or at the very least a great deal of the cerebral acrobatics in which JH et al engage viz the 2A are really efforts to convince themselves that they know what they are talking about. The mixing of apples and oranges, speculative conjectures presented as legal precedents, misstating basic stipulations of law then construction architectures of thought upon them are the proclivities I observe which make substantive dialectic futile.

Such arguments more resemble the eruption of a rhetorical geyser than a purport from which an exchange of thoughts, opinions or information can follow. It is an indulgence in what might be called "opinionology" which refers to the use of one fact-sparse, highly biased personal opinion to validate another.

I think it's simpler than that.  They do the acrobatics because they're trying to find a way of weaseling in a right for them to disarm the segments of society they fear and distrust (eg anybody but themselves).  They know they can't just pass a law for wholesale confiscation (They wish they could.  Diane Feinswine:  "Hand 'em in, Mr and Mrs America!") so they have to whittle at the edges, using emotional language in place of cold reasoning (hence the use of words like "waltz around" and "wave around"), trying to find a toe-hold so they can boast of finding a "reasonable restriction" that allows them to infringe. 

I find it interesting our friend repeatedly demanded specific cites from courts, then when he got them ignored them.  There really is no reasoning, thousands of words have not convinced him he's wrong, nor convinced any of us we're wrong either.  I've never seen a bigger waste of time on a forum.

[bigheadfred]

Speaking for myself it has some entertainment value, @Cyber Liberty.

[Jazzhead]

You do realize, this court ruling defends carrying arms in the public square, even though the state can decide (within reason) how they are carried.  Some make the argument for open and not conceal carry just as easily.

Of course.  From the start I've been arguing the primacy of federalism.   I'm not suggesting folks shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in public, whether openly or concealed.  I'm addressing the current move to federalize what has long been a traditional function of the states and local governments, to regulate open and/or concealed carry in the public square.  I don't want my state to be forced to accept Texas-style gun culture.   Just as you don't want your state to be forced to accept Philly-style limitations on the carrying of arms.     

[INVAR]

I find it interesting our friend repeatedly demanded specific cites from courts, then when he got them ignored them.  There really is no reasoning, thousands of words have not convinced him he's wrong, nor convinced any of us we're wrong either.  I've never seen a bigger waste of time on a forum.

It's not a waste at all.

He has offered himself as target practice - as we learn how to wage war upon and counter Liberal Leftism insisted to be 'Conservatism".

We are training in combat against a very real ideological enemy in our midst.

And all his absurd reasoning and perverted logic is from the Leftist Playbook of attempting to sound more knowledgable than you on any given subject they seek to impose or infringe upon our liberties.

[Jazzhead]

I find it interesting our friend repeatedly demanded specific cites from courts, then when he got them ignored them. 

Oh, cut the crap.  In my post #218, I specifically thanked Thackney for taking the time to share some pertinent cases.  And agreed with the salient holding.   

[Jazzhead]

It's not a waste at all.

He has offered himself as target practice - as we learn how to wage war upon and counter Liberal Leftism insisted to be 'Conservatism".

We are training in combat against a very real ideological enemy in our midst.

And all his absurd reasoning and perverted logic is from the Leftist Playbook of attempting to sound more knowledgable than you on any given subject they seek to impose or infringe upon our liberties.

My reasoning comes straight from the Constitution.   Federalism is a cornerstone of our Republic,  notwithstanding gun-waving liberals like yourself.   

[txradioguy]

I don't want my state to be forced to accept Texas-style gun culture.

I've lived in Texas since 1974...not sure what this mythical "gun culture" is that you're talking about in reference to my state...but it's tiresome and a false narrative.  I know it's part of your Liberal DNA to mock that which you don't understand...but your act is tiresome.

Texas is no different in it's laws concerning guns than Kentucky...Idaho...Vermont...and a whole host of other states.

Your jealously over all things Texas is stupid.

Just as you don't want your state to be forced to accept Philly-style limitations on the carrying of arms.   

Philly style limitations are in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

What are you and the rest of the gun grabbing bed wetter going to do when Pennsylvania adopts Constitutional Carry?

[txradioguy]

My reasoning comes straight from the Constitution.   Federalism is a cornerstone of our Republic,  notwithstanding gun-waving liberals like yourself.   

Your reasoning comes from what you want the Constitution to read...not what it actually says.

This is typical of the Liberal mindset.

You are no more interested in Federalism or the Bill of Rights than you are the price of tea in China.  You are merely trying to misrepresent and mis-interpret what is clearly written in the Constitution to further your own Liberal views.

You are using what the Framers gave us against us to try and control us.

You do this on every issue where you incorrectly cite the Constitution to back your Liberal beliefs.

[Jazzhead]

What are you and the rest of the gun grabbing bed wetter going to do when Pennsylvania adopts Constitutional Carry?

You keep missing the point, again and again and again.     I don't want your gun culture forced upon the folks in my state and my city by federal edict.   We must have the right to decide such things for ourselves.   

[Jazzhead]

Your reasoning comes from what you want the Constitution to read...not what it actually says.

This is typical of the Liberal mindset.

You are no more interested in Federalism or the Bill of Rights than you are the price of tea in China.  You are merely trying to misrepresent and mis-interpret what is clearly written in the Constitution to further your own Liberal views.

You are using what the Framers gave us against us to try and control us.

You do this on every issue where you incorrectly cite the Constitution to back your Liberal beliefs.

Federalism is not a Liberal belief.  On this issue, you're the Liberal.   

[Cyber Liberty]

My reasoning comes straight from the Constitution.   Federalism is a cornerstone of our Republic,  notwithstanding gun-waving liberals like yourself.   

You cut the crap.  Your reasoning comes straight from Saul Alinsky:  Redefine your enemy's rules so narrowly nobody can possibly live up to them, then hold him to those standards.  You do that every time you tell us what a conservative or Federalist would do.

I find nothing useful in discussing serious matters with a follower of Alinsky.  Bye.

(BTW, I should probably report you for calling me a liberal, but I realize you are just being an Alinskyite.)

[Smokin Joe]

You keep missing the point, again and again and again.     I don't want your gun culture forced upon the folks in my state and my city by federal edict.   We must have the right to decide such things for ourselves.

Yet you would regulate that ability to decide away. 

[thackney]

Of course.  From the start I've been arguing the primacy of federalism.   I'm not suggesting folks shouldn't be allowed to carry guns in public, whether openly or concealed.  I'm addressing the current move to federalize what has long been a traditional function of the states and local governments, to regulate open and/or concealed carry in the public square.  I don't want my state to be forced to accept Texas-style gun culture.   Just as you don't want your state to be forced to accept Philly-style limitations on the carrying of arms.   

I see this court case eliminates "and".  The justification was public bearing arms was a right, but methods could be limited.

2nd Amendment is not limited to protection at your home, agreed?

[txradioguy]

Federalism is not a Liberal belief. 

What you're espousing isn't Federalism...not even close.

On this issue, you're the Liberal.

What are you?  12?

[INVAR]

I don't want my state to be forced to accept Texas-style gun culture.

I don't want my state to be forced to accept San Francisco-style homosexual culture which you demand be imposed upon us all.

You keep missing the point, again and again and again.     I don't want your gun culture forced upon the folks in my state and my city by federal edict.   We must have the right to decide such things for ourselves.   

Projection.

I don't want your perverted sex culture forced upon the citizens of my state and my town by federal edict.  We retain the right to decide whether or not to accept such things for ourselves, and when people like you attempt to force it upon us by court diktats or unlawful declarations from counsels and agencies - it is the very definition of tyranny being imposed.

And tyranny being imposed by the state, no matter who attempts to use them as their battering ram to impose such tyranny, is exactly why we have a Second Amendment to begin with.

I continue to enjoy pointing out how you convolute enumerated rights as being open for 'reasonable restriction' under the auspices of 'federalism' while denying the same as it applies to a PERVERTED BEHAVIOR.

But you do what Liberals do, all you have done is to out yourself.

It is your vain attempt to deceive the members of this board about who and what you truly are that has earned you our contempt and consternation.

[Sighlass]

On this issue, you're the Liberal.   

ROFLMBO.. yeah right.

[LateForLunch]

JH is a fanatic about his terror that responsible, law abiding citizens would find his fears of them silly. His arguments are circular and typically devoid of legal validity. His strong feeling that his own personal opinions about the open carry issue supersede both John Lott's and Antonin Scalia's is a very clear indication to me that his own mind is closed to any new information. Instead of a dialectic, we get a geyser of opinionology spouting forth which can neither be stoppered nor channeled.

Thanks to all who have participated in the thread. Some worthy points have been logged and I have learned a great deal. Bottom line is that largely and increasingly, 2A entitlements are strong even in the face of challenges and by all indications based on Constitutional law, will continue to advance toward a less-restrictive, more crime-deterring state in our nation - as well it should.

Having great fears or anxieties does not confer upon one great entitlements to enacting strictures willy-nilly.

[bigheadfred]

I don't know much. But thanks to you people I know more.  I've read some things, too. It seems if you have a fear of an inanimate object, like a gun, it may be a sign of a mental problem. Like a phobia. And you really should have it looked at before you brandish it in public. You might scare someone.

[INVAR]

Instead of a dialectic, we get a geyser of opinionology spouting forth...

OPINIONOLOGY


I LIKE IT!  Explains a lot of the argumentation passed off as fact that we hear these days.

Opinionology.

New word to learn of the week.

Thanks LFL! 

[Cyber Liberty]

OPINIONOLOGY


I LIKE IT!  Explains a lot of the argumentation passed off as fact that we hear these days.

Opinionology.

New word to learn of the week.

Thanks LFL!

Yeah, me too.  I'm probably guilty of that more than I care to admit.

[Jazzhead]

JH is a fanatic about his terror that responsible, law abiding citizens would find his fears of them silly. His arguments are circular and typically devoid of legal validity. His strong feeling that his own personal opinions about the open carry issue supersede both John Lott's and Antonin Scalia's is a very clear indication to me that his own mind is closed to any new information. Instead of a dialectic, we get a geyser of opinionology spouting forth which can neither be stoppered nor channeled.

Thanks to all who have participated in the thread. Some worthy points have been logged and I have learned a great deal. Bottom line is that largely and increasingly, 2A entitlements are strong even in the face of challenges and by all indications based on Constitutional law, will continue to advance toward a less-restrictive, more crime-deterring state in our nation - as well it should.

Having great fears or anxieties does not confer upon one great entitlements to enacting strictures willy-nilly.

Again, notwithstanding all the bib-spittle from you and others,  the law is quite clear that a state or local government has significant discretion to regulate the carrying of arms in the public square.   Such regulation cannot deny the essence of the gun right (that's the key holding of Scalia in Heller), but no one has been able to find a case where restrictions on open carry have failed to pass Constitutional muster. 

[Jazzhead]

His arguments are circular and typically devoid of legal validity.

How so?  And how do my arguments lack legal validity when they are supported by the case law, including Heller itself? 

With the exception of Thackney, I think you've all swung and missed.     

[bigheadfred]

How so?  And how do my arguments lack legal validity when they are supported by the case law, including Heller itself? 

With the exception of Thackney, I think you've all swung and missed.   

I can handle swinging and missing. But you aren't even in the ballpark.

[Mod2]

As @LateForLunch is content with the result of the thread and has given his approval, we'll now be locking it.

With a few small exceptions, well done to all those who participated. It was an interesting discussion.

[Doug Loss]

It's interesting that @Jazzhead constantly talks about Texas gun culture in contrast to Pennsylvania gun culture, but really refers to Philadelphia gun culture, which is quite greatly different than the gun culture of the rest of Pennsylvania.  In fact, the Philadelphia gun laws contravene PA law: The Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 makes it illegal for any county, municipality or township to regulate an individual's possession of firearms.