G
Guest
Guest
imported post
-
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.
Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
thoughtpolice wrote:
Hmmm... perhaps because the states are sovereign and not political subdivisions of the federal govt. while local governments are political subdivisions of the state and not sovereign. :banghead:
Gee, I guess Steve Gunn's strong point as an attorney isn't constitutional law.:shock:
thoughtpolice wrote:
Hmmm... perhaps because the states are sovereign and not political subdivisions of the federal govt. while local governments are political subdivisions of the state and not sovereign. :banghead:
Gee, I guess Steve Gunn's strong point as an attorney isn't constitutional law.:shock:
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Thundar wrote:
Many states have adopted the Home Rule principle for counties and cities. The same sovereign principal for subdivisions of states can be applied as for states. There is nothing in the Federal constitution that prohibits the 10th amendment from being applied to counties and cities. We could do like Canada and say that all powers not specifically granted are reserved for the Federal Government.
Thundar wrote:
Many states have adopted the Home Rule principle for counties and cities. The same sovereign principal for subdivisions of states can be applied as for states. There is nothing in the Federal constitution that prohibits the 10th amendment from being applied to counties and cities. We could do like Canada and say that all powers not specifically granted are reserved for the Federal Government.
scorpioajr
Regular Member
imported post
Geeez...really? 99.98% of the time no one gives me a 2nd a glance when i OC in supermarkets, malls, walking around my block, etc...
I bet if the majority of the people that thought guns got/get "SO much attention"; Actually tried to OC one day... They would see how big of a deal it ISN'T.
Geeez...really? 99.98% of the time no one gives me a 2nd a glance when i OC in supermarkets, malls, walking around my block, etc...
I bet if the majority of the people that thought guns got/get "SO much attention"; Actually tried to OC one day... They would see how big of a deal it ISN'T.
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
It would seem that Mr. Gunn is more interested in applying his vested emotional interests to his gun control logic than he is common sense and a rationalization that should be based more on fact and true public opinion and desire.
Applying common sense to his logic, where does it stop with regulatory authority in his eyes? If the state entities within itself, that being the counties and cities within astate, should be given authority to enact their own gun control, then why not East and West sides of cities? Why not individual neighborhoods within those cities. Oh hell, why not each individual home? This idiot has no basis for his logic other than his emotional vendetta against guns for whatever reason of which we do not know.
The fact that this bumbling and pathetic excuse for a human being is able to have such authority to sway the ignorant public in such a biased and factless direction on the gun issue is disturbing. Somebody needs to put this guy in his place.
Kevin
It would seem that Mr. Gunn is more interested in applying his vested emotional interests to his gun control logic than he is common sense and a rationalization that should be based more on fact and true public opinion and desire.
Applying common sense to his logic, where does it stop with regulatory authority in his eyes? If the state entities within itself, that being the counties and cities within astate, should be given authority to enact their own gun control, then why not East and West sides of cities? Why not individual neighborhoods within those cities. Oh hell, why not each individual home? This idiot has no basis for his logic other than his emotional vendetta against guns for whatever reason of which we do not know.
The fact that this bumbling and pathetic excuse for a human being is able to have such authority to sway the ignorant public in such a biased and factless direction on the gun issue is disturbing. Somebody needs to put this guy in his place.
Kevin
scorpioajr
Regular Member
imported post
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
Lol, Kevin: I think you just did!
-----------------------------------------
+1
It is hardly ever, that an article is written (such as this one) that does not have a heavy anti-gun tone. The problem with an advocate for our side, IMO, is: We could have Sir Anthony Hopkins writing our speeches, but as soon as these people hear the term "Gun" used in any sentence, all the old stigmas come back and the facts tend to get "tuned" out. In the same breath, however, we can't just let people get away with it. What do I know, I'm just a professional internet-rambler.
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
Lol, Kevin: I think you just did!
-----------------------------------------
+1
It is hardly ever, that an article is written (such as this one) that does not have a heavy anti-gun tone. The problem with an advocate for our side, IMO, is: We could have Sir Anthony Hopkins writing our speeches, but as soon as these people hear the term "Gun" used in any sentence, all the old stigmas come back and the facts tend to get "tuned" out. In the same breath, however, we can't just let people get away with it. What do I know, I'm just a professional internet-rambler.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
As a related follow-up how many states allow individual counties or cities to set their own alcohol laws? I know NC does where a county may be dry but the first thing inside the city limits or when you cross the county line is a liquor store. Lots of traffic laws are the same way. Most cities in SC have passed a careless driving law. If you get caught for speeding you can plead guilty to careless driving and the city gets to keep all the fine and there is no points against your drivers license.
As a related follow-up how many states allow individual counties or cities to set their own alcohol laws? I know NC does where a county may be dry but the first thing inside the city limits or when you cross the county line is a liquor store. Lots of traffic laws are the same way. Most cities in SC have passed a careless driving law. If you get caught for speeding you can plead guilty to careless driving and the city gets to keep all the fine and there is no points against your drivers license.
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
Although I see where youare goingwith this logic, it has no application to a protected right to bear arms under the constitution of this country. The defense of life via a sidearm is totally separate, specific and special in its own right and should not be confused with any other facets in comparison as such. I respect your idea, but it is baseless in regard to firearms in defense of life liberty and property.
Kevin
Edit: After reading your post more closely, I realized that it may not have been written to criticize the preemption statute of this state but rather to also point out that there are other stupid things that states allow cities to do that should also be preempted. I apoligize for the misconception on my part if that is the case and agree with you that those things you pointed out are also ridiculous.
PT111 wrote:
Although I see where youare goingwith this logic, it has no application to a protected right to bear arms under the constitution of this country. The defense of life via a sidearm is totally separate, specific and special in its own right and should not be confused with any other facets in comparison as such. I respect your idea, but it is baseless in regard to firearms in defense of life liberty and property.
Kevin
Edit: After reading your post more closely, I realized that it may not have been written to criticize the preemption statute of this state but rather to also point out that there are other stupid things that states allow cities to do that should also be preempted. I apoligize for the misconception on my part if that is the case and agree with you that those things you pointed out are also ridiculous.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
I really have no opinions on preemption one way or the other. However I agree with the point made by someone that a reasonable person should not be expected to have to know a myriad of laws for every county and town in a state and that is the thoughtbehind preemption or that is what was pointed out. The state laws on guns should apply to the whole state since those laws are enacted at the state level and should not be overridden by each and every local yokle town and county.
I merely tried to point out that state preemption does not always apply and many laws are left up to the locals. For someone to claim that it is unconstitutional for a local jurisdiction to have a different set of laws than the state or that states always aqutomatically control all laws of a locality can look to these types to see that it is not always thecase. it would be up to the state legislature to grant or deny such "Home Rule" just as the 10th amendment has granted it to the states. Preemption of gun laws must be declared by the state as it is not normally in any state constitution and not in the US Constitution. As much as we want to think that there is there nothing sacred about gun laws at the state or local level other than the very few rulings by the US Supreme Court.
I really have no opinions on preemption one way or the other. However I agree with the point made by someone that a reasonable person should not be expected to have to know a myriad of laws for every county and town in a state and that is the thoughtbehind preemption or that is what was pointed out. The state laws on guns should apply to the whole state since those laws are enacted at the state level and should not be overridden by each and every local yokle town and county.
I merely tried to point out that state preemption does not always apply and many laws are left up to the locals. For someone to claim that it is unconstitutional for a local jurisdiction to have a different set of laws than the state or that states always aqutomatically control all laws of a locality can look to these types to see that it is not always thecase. it would be up to the state legislature to grant or deny such "Home Rule" just as the 10th amendment has granted it to the states. Preemption of gun laws must be declared by the state as it is not normally in any state constitution and not in the US Constitution. As much as we want to think that there is there nothing sacred about gun laws at the state or local level other than the very few rulings by the US Supreme Court.
scorpioajr
Regular Member
imported post
Article VI, U.S. Constitution
"...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;..."
The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations...
Article VI, U.S. Constitution
"...This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;..."
The Constitution Comes Before Statutes, Edicts, Ordinances, Rules or Regulations...
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
scorpioajr
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
RIGHT.
But the "...or to the people..." references an Article V Convention. Which we want and qualify for but of course are denied despite 628 (or more) applications by the state legislatures of ALL 50 states and THEY won't give it to us, the people. So, now what? Lube up and bend over, right? Right. Thats what we have been doing, that what we realize we have to do, and THATS why we (I) are/am bitching about it.
It solely reserved for the states with the illusion that the people have choice.
PT111 wrote:
RIGHT.
But the "...or to the people..." references an Article V Convention. Which we want and qualify for but of course are denied despite 628 (or more) applications by the state legislatures of ALL 50 states and THEY won't give it to us, the people. So, now what? Lube up and bend over, right? Right. Thats what we have been doing, that what we realize we have to do, and THATS why we (I) are/am bitching about it.
It solely reserved for the states with the illusion that the people have choice.
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
This is true on so many levels. +1
Our electoral college system is a perfect example of this as well. Do our votes really count? Do we really have a true choice, even in our "democratic republic, " anymore?
Right now, we are subjects to our govenrment. It doesn't answer to us anymore. It answers to the lobbyists and corporate giants and those with greed and power.
Kevin
Edit: To back up this notion with evidence, just take a look at what our powerful buddy, Bill Gates, is up to and how congress swooned over him like a celebrity while he was selling us down the river.
ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
It solely reserved for the states with the illusion that the people have choice.
This is true on so many levels. +1
Our electoral college system is a perfect example of this as well. Do our votes really count? Do we really have a true choice, even in our "democratic republic, " anymore?
Right now, we are subjects to our govenrment. It doesn't answer to us anymore. It answers to the lobbyists and corporate giants and those with greed and power.
Kevin
Edit: To back up this notion with evidence, just take a look at what our powerful buddy, Bill Gates, is up to and how congress swooned over him like a celebrity while he was selling us down the river.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
ProtectedBy9mm wrote:
Time after time I read on this board references to the 10th amendment and exactly what it is means as to ...or to the people. It has been repeated many times that if something is not prohibited ny law such as open carry in many states then it is legal. That is a direct result of the 10th amendment and a perfect example of it. It means exactly what it says, if it is not prohibited then it is legal. Open Carry being legal is a direct result fo the 10th amendment and the part of it that says "Or to the people".PT111 wrote:
RIGHT.
But the "...or to the people..." references an Article V Convention. Which we want and qualify for but of course are denied despite 628 (or more) applications by the state legislatures of ALL 50 states and THEY won't give it to us, the people. So, now what? Lube up and bend over, right? Right. Thats what we have been doing, that what we realize we have to do, and THATS why we (I) are/am bitching about it.
It solely reserved for the states with the illusion that the people have choice.
LovesHisXD45
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
This is a good point PT. Thanks for sharing it. I hadn't looked at it that way before.
Kevin
PT111 wrote:
This is a good point PT. Thanks for sharing it. I hadn't looked at it that way before.
Kevin
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
LovesHisXD45 wrote:
We tend to get so caught up in 2A and 1A that we forget about the others. To me the 10th is the most significant of all. I am not a scholar on Canadian law by any means but I understand that theirs is the reverse meaning that unless it is specificially granted then it is illegal. Think of what this would mean in the US. For instance the right to keep and bear arms would only apply to those locations spelled out and the types of arms that would be allowed. The Federal Government would control all actions of the states and people. This would basically nullify all other amendments unless we were given permission by the Feds to exercise them.
utbagpiper
Banned
imported post
PT111 wrote:
And while some degree of local diversity is probably a good thing, our State constitution specifically requires:
[font="Arial,Helvetica"] Article I, Section 24. [Uniform operation of laws.]
All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.
Now, certainly, in this day and age, operation of a motor vehicle, firearm laws, and the like are "laws of a general nature" and must therefor have "uniform operation" throughout the State.
In light of this requirement, State preemption is not just a good idea, but darn near a requirement under our form of State government.
Other States have a different power structure and may view cities or counties as sovereign and thus delegating power to the State. But in Utah our power structure is the State delegates powers to the feds AND to the cities.
Charles
[/font]
PT111 wrote:
Remember folks, we are in Utah and so we should look to the STATE constitution before even bothering with the federal constitution. It turns out that in Utah, at least, the STATE in the sovereign government entity. Cities and county derive their powers entirely from what the State delegates to them. NOTHING more.
And while some degree of local diversity is probably a good thing, our State constitution specifically requires:
[font="Arial,Helvetica"] Article I, Section 24. [Uniform operation of laws.]
All laws of a general nature shall have uniform operation.
Now, certainly, in this day and age, operation of a motor vehicle, firearm laws, and the like are "laws of a general nature" and must therefor have "uniform operation" throughout the State.
In light of this requirement, State preemption is not just a good idea, but darn near a requirement under our form of State government.
Other States have a different power structure and may view cities or counties as sovereign and thus delegating power to the State. But in Utah our power structure is the State delegates powers to the feds AND to the cities.
Charles
[/font]
imported post
thoughtpolice wrote:
I'm confused. So the UTA feels like limiting "dangerous weapsons" to those carried by law enforcement doesn't step all over the state statue indicating that it is NOT a crime to carry a firearm on public transportation? That they are just regulating the conduct??
On a side note... anyone that thinks that the posts here on this site are one-sided need to check out the user comments for this article on the Tribune's website. They'll give you a laugh (but also an insite to the other views held by other citizens).
thoughtpolice wrote:
I'm confused. So the UTA feels like limiting "dangerous weapsons" to those carried by law enforcement doesn't step all over the state statue indicating that it is NOT a crime to carry a firearm on public transportation? That they are just regulating the conduct??
On a side note... anyone that thinks that the posts here on this site are one-sided need to check out the user comments for this article on the Tribune's website. They'll give you a laugh (but also an insite to the other views held by other citizens).
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
Very good point. Preemptiondoes vary greatly from state to state and within states according to what is delegated and what is not. Your point about the operation of motor vehicles is a good one and is almost uniform nationwide. The primary differences between states is the age of operation and the point system but the actual operation is almost universal.
Very good point. Preemptiondoes vary greatly from state to state and within states according to what is delegated and what is not. Your point about the operation of motor vehicles is a good one and is almost uniform nationwide. The primary differences between states is the age of operation and the point system but the actual operation is almost universal.
utbagpiper
Banned
imported post
OH, and all, PLEASE do let me know -- pm me if needed -- if you find illegal gun bans or signs to that effect.
We want to gather them so we can push for some action from the State following the election in November.
OH, and all, PLEASE do let me know -- pm me if needed -- if you find illegal gun bans or signs to that effect.
We want to gather them so we can push for some action from the State following the election in November.