JamesCanby
Activist Member
You and I agree completely. This is a states issue, not a central government issue, and your comment about severability is correct.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act
- Thread starter skidmark
- Start date
You and I agree completely. This is a states issue, not a central government issue, and your comment about severability is correct.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Is it a states issue? When a state does cross a line and make laws in defiance of the constitution who is to intervene?
I personally love the idea of one of the government branches stopping a state from jailing someone who is acting lawfully in one state just for crossing into another state. I have a personal stake in it. I frequently have to cross into the hell that is Maryland. I have to be mindful when I leave my house. Am I sure I don't need to cross enemy borders during my errands? lol it sucks.
On the other hand I'm quite wary of the fed's way of fixing anything. I worry about it turning sour by becoming a Federal permitting process or something.
I personally love the idea of one of the government branches stopping a state from jailing someone who is acting lawfully in one state just for crossing into another state. I have a personal stake in it. I frequently have to cross into the hell that is Maryland. I have to be mindful when I leave my house. Am I sure I don't need to cross enemy borders during my errands? lol it sucks.
On the other hand I'm quite wary of the fed's way of fixing anything. I worry about it turning sour by becoming a Federal permitting process or something.
Laws do very from state to state, hence what may be legal in one state is not necessarily so in another. That is not just restricted to guns/RKBA - i.e. max speed limit, age to consume alcohol, age to drive, etc., etc.
Too remember, that what the government grants, the government can take away.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
I understand laws vary. My point was if a state law defies the constitution we should expect the Fed Gov to step in. IMHO some state's gun laws do in fact defy the constitution and therefore intervention is warranted.
I haven't read the law, only the write up about it. However I would hope it would not be a situation of the "government granting" something but the government telling the state it can't do a wrong it is currently doing.
I am wary of it as I said, and would like to have a detailed explanation of exactly what it does before endorsing it.
Appreciate what you are saying; however, what we must keep in mind is that the Constitution is for the most part, particularly so in the case of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment, a restriction on the federal government.
Our founding fathers told the federal government - hands off!
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
I have to disagree with you, particularly so in the case of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment. Through application of the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] amendment the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment was recently (McDonald v. Chicago) upheld to apply to the states.
In fact many if not most of the BOR have been incorporated against the states at some point.
Our founding fathers may have had the federal gov in mind but lucky the 14[SUP]th[/SUP] came along and is being used to protect our rights not only from the feds but the states as well.
SovereigntyOrDeath
Regular Member
Exactly!
So, how do we restore our 2nd Amendment Rights?
How do we get all three branches of the federal government to keep their hands off?
In Morris vs Army Corps of Engineers the court states:
"The court thus reasoned that because such residency restrictions affected the right to keep and bear arms as understood at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, the federal residency restrictions burdened conduct that fell within the scope of the Second Amendment."
So, using the reasoning emphasized, it would seem a reasonable, common sense conclusion would be to allow law abiding citizens to carry their firearm open or concealed for self protection because that is what was understood at the time the 2nd was ratified. No restriction was placed on how one could keep and bear arms on December 15, 1791.
In fact the opposite was understood. The right was not to be infringed.
Last edited:
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
Be wary of what you wish for. A federal government who interprets the 14th as a broad power to protect rights will also interpret it as a broad power to take them away.
Did you know the 14th wasn't meant for incorporation or that it wasn't even properly ratified?
Now you've done it! Bringing facts into an emotional issue. How dare you, sir.
http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html
OC for ME
Regular Member
You need to get out more often. If the Sullivan Act can stand after all sorts of court cases why should a nut be disbarred his right just cuz he is a nut. We give wife beaters, who happens to be employed as a cop, a gun on the public dime and know that he will not harm his estranges spouse...right, cuz we know he can be trusted with a gun...right?
If a nut harms a citizen, cuz he is a nut, why is he doing so with a gun different than he doing so with a weed-whacker? Please pray tell...enlighten all of us...
Before you get started, I get it, a gun is different, according to anti-liberty liberals, cuz dead by gunshot is wayyy different than dead by weed whacker.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d114:2:./temp/~bdMoMO::|/home/LegislativeData.php|
If I can do that surely you could have.
(What?!? You never heards of THOMAS before?)
stay safe.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Do you disagree with the McDonald v. Chicago decision? Do you believe the states have the power to remove our RKBA?
Now you've done it! Bringing facts into an emotional issue. How dare you, sir.
I don't see how this discussion was emotional. I do disagree with you. I guess that could make someone emotional.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Very interesting reading about the 14th. Things were quite a mess back then as they are today I guess. But even if it wasn't legal our government certainly seems to regard it as ratified so it's a mute point.
Even though I typically feel state rights are very important I am glad about the 14th. I shudder at the idea of states having the power to defy the BOR.
Also I've never once seen anyone complain that the SCOTUS didn't have the right to strike down the Chicago gun ban. It's typically called a "land mark win for 2nd amendment rights". However the SCOTUS clearly spelled out that the 14th was the grounds for striking it down.
I do completely share the fear of the feds having too much power over the states. The interpretation of the commerce cause is flat out evil. But an amendment like the 14th preserving rights seems to be a good thing.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner
--snipped--
Did you know the 14th wasn't meant for incorporation or that it wasn't even properly ratified?
Originally Posted by Grapeshot
Now you've done it! Bringing facts into an emotional issue. How dare you, sir.
My obvious tongue-in-cheek reply was made clearly to another poster (SVG) and not represented as otherwise.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
Ok I gotcha.
All good. So what DO you think about the McDonald v. Chicago ruling? Does the SCOTUS have the power to strike down state laws that violate the 2nd amendment or was it a bad ruling?
Ok I gotcha.
So what DO you think about the McDonald v. Chicago ruling? Does the SCOTUS have the power to strike down state laws that violate the 2nd amendment or was it a bad ruling?
SCOTUS has the power to do many things - some I don't think intended.
SCOTUS is the final arbitrator of whether it is correct or not. The checks and balances ends there.
McDonald v. Chicago worked out well. Where the next case falls remains to be seen.
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
You ever consider running for office?
If nominated, I will not run. Please direct all questions to my campaign manager.
Problem being, I cannot allow myself to be but so "candid" on some subjects as that may come across as an OCDO position - that being reserved for John and/or Mike.
My solution, on occasion, is to stimulate conversation on a particular aspect and let the forum members/users bat it around. I learn a lot that way too.
Last edited:
twoskinsonemanns
Regular Member
If nominated, I will not run. Please direct all questions to my campaign manager.
Problem being, I cannot allow myself to be but so "candid" on some subjects as that may come across as an OCDO position - that being reserved for John and/or Mike.
My solution, on occasion, is to stimulate conversation on a particular aspect and let the forum members/users bat it around. I learn a lot that way too.
:lol:
Fair enough.
since9
Campaign Veteran
You're usually right on target, Grapeshot, so I'm really surprised you missed this one by a mile.
So, if you would, please tell me again what what We the People should do, "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends?" "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them."
Is it not "the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?"
Our Founding Fathers considered this universal truth to be so supremely important that they had it preserved for all time in the minds and hearts of all Americans. They keep these words in our Nationals Archives. They had them reproduced in the American History books available to every American who ever attended public school, as well as the vast majority who attended private school, as well.
This has nothing to do with overthrowing the government. It has everything to do with preserving our government by reminding those who currently inhabit the seats created by our Constitution that they were elected to serve our government -- "of the people, by the people, for the people" -- at the pleasure of the people.
We the People are the final arbiter of whether the decisions made by the Supreme Court are correct or not. We always have been, in every nation, and long before our own Declaration of Independence was more than a single thought in someone's mind.
The Declaration of Independence itself says precisely why this is so: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
No one is putting our government "on notice." They put themselves on notice the moment they raised their right hand and took the same oath of office alongside every military, civil, and law-enforcement officer in our land: "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
If they don't believe they put themselves on notice, they weren't paying attention. That's the entire purpose of the oath of office.
Our Republic is a nation of laws, but preserving our nation requires people of honor and integrity occupying positions of public trust. All the laws in the world are rendered worthless when those in government refuse to follow them, or worse, attempt to replace just laws with ones that are unjust. When that happens, we edge closer to the same pit in which our Founding Fathers found themselves shortly before they declared our nation's independence.
But not quite. We the People have another course of action we should always use first, and use often, one protected by our First Amendment: "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even in this simple exercise of requesting Congress to pass or block legislation, and to approve or deny appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court, We the People are rights as the ultimate arbiters.
We the People are the final arbiters in our own governmental affairs. Not the Supreme Court. Not the President. Not Congress.
Us.