"why do you scary carry?"

imported post

ManInBlack wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Correction: none of the protections of the bill of rights applied to the governments states until after the supreme court specifically incorporated/incorporates them against the states. In fact, the court specifically ruled that the protections were protections of infringement by a federal government, not the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

Your concept of how the constitution works and has worked is fundamentally flawed.

*edit* in fact, you make a testable assertion - what pre-civil war cases can you point to where the BoR protections were applied against the states?

Click to expand...

Upon review, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that paragraph about the 14th Amendment. Scratch that.

I still maintain that nothing in the Washington state constitution authorizes the regulation of concealed carry, and, in fact, prohibits it through the phrase, "shall not be impaired," which, to my interpretation, is even more restrictive than "shall not be infringed." This is opposed to the constitutions of several other states, Louisiana being the example I used, in which the state government is specifically authorized to regulate concealed carry.

Thanks for the correction. Curious to hear your thoughts on the state constitutionality of concealed weapons laws.

Click to expand...

Technically, "impaired" is a lesser degree of protection than "infringed", as one can regulate the manner in which something may be done without damaging the fact it may be done. "Infringed" means to violate or break. One can infringe without impairing, but one cannot impair without infringement.

If, then, we are going to apply the strongest protection/burden of words to the states as being "infringed", one must consider what it means to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. As I read it, the right to keep and bear arms may be directed, but not abolished. I think I'll muse upon that for a while, later. Right now, suffice it to say that there are certainly limitations acceptable under our country's jurisprudence, dating back to Gitlow v. New York, specifying that a particular manner of exercising a right may exceed the protection that right is granted from the government.

imported post

Tawnos wrote:

...dating back to Gitlow v. New York, specifying that a particular manner of exercising a right may exceed the protection that right is granted from the government.

Click to expand...

You mean the government can censor and stop speech that advocates it's overthrow.

Gitlow v. New York was important because he wrote a "Left Wing Manifesto" that called for the overthrow of the government at the time, but didn't specify any specific time or means.

imported post

ManInBlack wrote:

Tawnos wrote:

Correction: none of the protections of the bill of rights applied to the governments states until after the supreme court specifically incorporated/incorporates them against the states. In fact, the court specifically ruled that the protections were protections of infringement by a federal government, not the states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore

Your concept of how the constitution works and has worked is fundamentally flawed.

*edit* in fact, you make a testable assertion - what pre-civil war cases can you point to where the BoR protections were applied against the states?

Click to expand...

Upon review, you are right. I don't know what I was thinking when I typed that paragraph about the 14th Amendment. Scratch that.

I still maintain that nothing in the Washington state constitution authorizes the regulation of concealed carry, and, in fact, prohibits it through the phrase, "shall not be impaired," which, to my interpretation, is even more restrictive than "shall not be infringed." This is opposed to the constitutions of several other states, Louisiana being the example I used, in which the state government is specifically authorized to regulate concealed carry.

Thanks for the correction. Curious to hear your thoughts on the state constitutionality of concealed weapons laws.

Click to expand...

Glad to see that you've read up and are aware of how screwed up the system is. I also think you thought I was arguing something that I wasn't. I am with you in the the laws are not in line with the state constitution; I was simply saying that the actual laws governing the land that we have to live by have little to do with the constitution...clearly we are saying the same thing from slightly different angles. :lol: