Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Supreme Court looking at gun control by cities, states; could bring changes in legal limits

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Saint Louis, Missouri, United States
    Posts
    292

    Post imported post

    http://www.fox2now.com/news/nationwo...,6135651.story

    opinions on this? what changes could this bring in the future? pros and cons?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Well last night on the news they were talking about this case and the DC ruling.
    The media commented about how the reporter went about getting a gun in DC,
    and how if they can deny a right with hoops it isn't a right.
    But then goes to a VA store and videos a 50 cal revolver that makes my wildey
    look like a toy. As if DC would ever allow that thing into the city.
    Sort of inferring that everyone will be walking around with one of these on
    there hip if the SCOTUS doesn't uphold reasonable laws, they did at least
    comment that you probably couldn't get a holster for it.

    Any bets on if they will comment on IL not allowing CC so must allow OC
    to comply with the constitution. Even if they restrict the owning of guns
    to the home, if you are homeless your home is on the street, and there
    are only two ways to carry a gun, hidden from view or in plain sight.
    Well 3 if you count brandishing.


    Is the zip code ban part of this case also?




  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in MO
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    I have mixed feelings on this. We live in United but separate States, so part of me thinks that an individual state should be allowed to make a law that is more restrictive than federal law, (or make a law that ignores federal law altogether like MT did with their "in state firearms" law).

    However, I think careful attention should be paid as a law can sometimes be a double-edged sword. With the verbiage on this, it would be really easy for the powers that be to bring all state firearm laws into line with federal law, which would then make it much easier to restrict and destroy rights at the stroke of pen.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578

    Post imported post

    I understand your apprehensions, but the constitution basically states if it is not a specificlly stated power given to the federal government, then the states have the power. What I mean is we are given the right "to bear arms" at the Federal level, therefore state and local gov. cannot restrict that right. In the Montana case they are saying that if a gun and ammo is made in state and does not leave the state, the Federal gov. doesn't have the right to regulate that gun using Interstate Commerce rules. One is about the "right" to bear the other is about the state's right to regulate vs. the Fed trying to impose an unstated power.
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in MO
    Posts
    204

    Post imported post

    Yes, that is what was attempting to say (in a less than eloquent fashion). Some may embrace the "federal" option if it brings less restrictive laws to their AO, however it could turn out to be a very easy option to bring all state firearm laws under the federal umbrella, then firearm law changes would be universal.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southern Half, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    I think SavageOne has this right.

    The 2nd Amendment is established before the rights reserved to the People and the States (10th).

    Not that the order they appear is necessarily important.

    What I mean is, that this right is already Federally guaranteed (or supposed to be).

    In order to be admitted to the union, state constitutions must agree with (and not supersede) the US Constitution. So if a right is granted by the federal government, it isn't supposed to be able to be restricted or revoked by a state. That isn't an issue of state's rights, that was in the agreement made by the original 13, and every state that has joined the union in the years since.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southern Half, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    As far as the case goes, I will be crossing my fingers in January and February.

    One thing, as some places have noted, it will either serve to hinder or help the other rights granted to the people, and the latter is something I would also like to see.

    I'd still like to know where the notion came from "To protect the people: from the people, from themselves, and from their rights."



  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    Lunie,

    Rights aren't 'granted' to people by governments. Additionally, our Federal government has no rights at all. They have powers.

    Our gov't was formed with the recognition of the inherent rights of people and to guarantee the protection of these rights.

    People grant this gov't 'power' to protect their rights, but retain their right to change that power.

    As an example, you give your teenager the power to drive your car but retain your right to take that away at any time.

    Carry on


  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Southern Half, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23

    Post imported post

    jmlefler wrote:
    Lunie,

    Rights aren't 'granted' to people by governments. Additionally, our Federal government has no rights at all. They have powers.

    Our gov't was formed with the recognition of the inherent rights of people and to guarantee the protection of these rights.

    People grant this gov't 'power' to protect their rights, but retain their right to change that power.

    As an example, you give your teenager the power to drive your car but retain your right to take that away at any time.

    Carry on
    Not to argue with you, but...

    That would only apply to "popular" government, rather than any of the many forcible systems. And I don't think I implied that the Federal government did have rights.

    I do recognize that the people granted the government powers, by either ratifying the constitution, or being admitted under it.

    As far as it goes, I hope we always have the option to change the system which governs us.

    Cheers

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •