G
Guest
Guest
imported post
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10460533
City, county gun bans defy state law, foes say
"I've always been puzzled by the notion that the state feels the federal government should not interfere in the governance of the state, but on the other hand the state Legislature feels it is appropriate to interfere with local governmental entities' gun control," Gunn said.
thoughtpolice wrote:http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10460533
City, county gun bans defy state law, foes say
"I've always been puzzled by the notion that the state feels the federal government should not interfere in the governance of the state, but on the other hand the state Legislature feels it is appropriate to interfere with local governmental entities' gun control," Gunn said.
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:
... "Most residents would have misgivings about extended use or the extended presence of guns in parks,"...
...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
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.
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.
It solely reserved for the states with the illusion that the people have choice.
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: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.
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.
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".
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.PT111 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".
This is a good point PT. Thanks for sharing it. I hadn't looked at it that way before.
Kevin
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.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.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_10460533
City, county gun bans defy state law, foes say
...There is a 1979 law banning dangerous concealed weapons from buses and trains, but there is also an exemption for concealed-weapon carriers. That doesn't stop the Utah Transit Authority from publishing Rider Rule #26 limiting "dangerous weapons" to those carried by law enforcement.
"The statute states that it is not a crime for a concealed-gun permit holder to carry a firearm on public transportation, but it does not state that UTA cannot regulate the conduct," said UTA spokeswoman Carrie Bohnsack-Ware....