Temporary gun ban at UoU for Sotomayor

MAC702 said:

1. The same applies everywhere to anyone under Secret Service protection.
2. Only in the place and during the time she is there, IF YOU CHOOSE to be there, also.

Would you guys be making the same argument if it was President Ronald Reagan? The jurisdictional issues would be the same.

Click to expand...

Ronny was not a great supporter of the 2nd amendment if you can recall.

And Yes, the argument would be the same for me.

And the law did not seem to effect Ronny-he got shot anyways.

So we have to know the locations of all these jokers at all times?

marshaul said:

You're right, Charles. Utah has such amazing gun laws that an illegal one day ban doesn't give anybody from other states standing to ridicule it.

Click to expand...

It is a perfectly valid point for discussion and disagreement.

For example, I do not care to have State law violated/ignored. I recognize the supremacy of federal law, but question whether there is a law at work in this case vs merely a policy or rule. We might also discuss what State (and/or federal) law should be in cases such as this? Is it constitutional/reasonable to allow for gun free secure zones for the protection of certain high profile government officials? Is it politically possible to win a battle against such zones?

But yes, the gun laws in Utah are, in fact, so good that anyone who presumes to ridicule even a one day gun ban that might (or may not) be illegal, better be very sure he isn't living in a glass house first. As I check my history, about once every 10 years, we get a 1 day ban, in one building, where a high ranking federal official is speaking. Shall we compare that to the 3650 days over that same period that private citizens were banned from bringing guns into all buildings on all college campuses in Wisconsin? Two days, one building when a supreme court justice or VP is speaking, vs 3650 days in all college buildings regardless of who isn't there. And someone presumes to ridicule Utah? Pretty rich when directed at a State so often accused of not treating people like adults. What does that mean about any State that won't let 22 year old college seniors, or even their faculty and staff carry a gun into a college building? How does my State compare in this regard to your State? Or any State where you've politically active?

If someone wants to ridicule Utah gun laws or how we handle these--for us being part of the nation's "fly over country"--fairly rare speeches from our rulers (I mean federal public servants), the proper direction for the ridicule is that when we passed our State Preemption law and made is so good, we failed to think ahead to the likely security requirements of presidents and SCOTUS justices to provide an exemption. We started from the presumption guns should be permitted everyone and missed an item or even or two on the short list of places where maybe private gun would need to be excluded. Silly us. We clearly should have done what most other States do which is start with the presumption guns are allowed no where and then start adding a short list of "RKBA zones" where they deign to permit guns.

(Make sure your sarcasm meter is properly tuned before taking offense to any of the above.)

marshaul said:

Surely there's a Utah-only gun forum where you can post this without having your highbrow discussion muddied by us proles.

Click to expand...

Probably not. I find the proles like to seek out opportunity to display themselves. But I can hold my hold in reminding you what the proper boundaries of discussion are.

All in good fun my friend.

Charles

I'm not arguing Reagan's attributes.

I'm noting that this is jurisdictionally no different.

To argue against her detail's banning of weapons in that building while she is there, is the same argument that the President's detail can't do the same.

Also, I am not defending the policy.

utbagpiper said:

(Make sure your sarcasm meter is properly tuned before taking offense to any of the above.)


All in good fun my friend.

Click to expand...

I think both of our sarcasm meters are in far better shape than David's will ever be. :lol:

marshaul said:

I think both of our sarcasm meters are in far better shape than David's will ever be. :lol:

Click to expand...

Depends on the number of beers .... that hour. lol

utbagpiper said:

Sure thing, if in fact there is a law, properly passed by congress and signed by the president at some point.

But is there such a law? Or just an agency policy? Or some other lessor "thing"?

Certainly federal laws, properly enacted pursuant to delegated constitutional powers are supreme to any conflicting State laws. But not every whim of some federal agent is supreme to State law.

Charles

Click to expand...

The state is culpable: emphasis added

Powers delegated to the Nation, therefore, are subject to limitations that reserve power to the States. This limitation is not found in the text of the Tenth Amendment, which is, the Court stated, ''but a truism,'' 70 but is a direct constraint on Article I powers when an incident of state sovereignty is invaded. 71 The ''take title'' provision was such an invasion. Both the Federal Government and the States owe political accountability to the people. When Congress encourages States to adopt and administer a federally-prescribed program, both governments maintain their accountability for their decisions. When Congress compels the States to act, state officials will bear the brunt of accountability that properly belongs at the national level. 72 The ''take title'' provision, because it presented the States with ''an unavoidable command'', transformed state governments into ''regional offices'' or ''administrative agencies'' of the Federal Government, impermissibly undermined the accountability owing the people and was void. 73 Whether viewed as lying outside Congress' enumerated powers or as infringing the core of state sovereignty reserved by the Tenth Amendment, ''the provision is inconsistent with the federal structure of our Government established by the Constitution.'' 74

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article6/annotation02.html#9

U.S Marshals Service History - Broad Range of Authority Given by Congress my additions in bold

The offices of U.S. Marshals and Deputy Marshal were created by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the same legislation that established the Federal judicial system. The Marshals were given extensive authority to support the federal courts within their judicial districts and to carry out all lawful orders issued by judges, Congress, or the president.

http://www.usmarshals.gov/history/broad_range.htm

The Marshals service was created by Congress, and with that, has their backing and support. Supremacy Clause jurisdiction established, I think.

MAC702 said:

I doubt it conflicts with state law any more than any other federal thing which takes priority. Would you say that POTUS also should not be allowed a gun-free room during his visits?.

Click to expand...

I'll take that challenge. I say, give him a side arm, a 1911 or a rifle, an AR-15, have all his boys with their guns out if he feels that threatened by the people that elected him as well as his respective taxpayers.

The president of these United States, should know how to handle a firearm anyways. Especially the 1911, it is AMERICA'S GUN. He can get one of those Marines or Secret Servicemen to show him how to look the part and tell him to not look down the muzzle with his finger on the trigger.

Or not... and Shotgun Joe becomes our top man.

MAC702 said:

... Would you say that POTUS also should not be allowed a gun-free room during his visits?...

Click to expand...

If on federal property then the Grand Poohba can have a gun free zone. Not federal property, disarm the SS...or don't come.

What's the absolute worse that can happen ?

Did anyone attend? Any reports?

So did anyone attend the speech today? Any reports?

Thanks

Charles