Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Federal pre-emption?

  1. #1
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    As the RTKBA is in the Federal Constitution, is there a possibility that the Feds will take over the gun laws from all the states? Maybe incorporate the 2nd against all the states by way of the P & I clause? A Federal CC permit. Ban on violent felons, persons under a restraining order and mental patients as mentioned in Heller. If they leave "reasonable regulation" to the states there will be endless court cases about what is reasonable.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  2. #2
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    As the RTKBA is in the Federal Constitution, is there a possibility that the Feds will take over the gun laws from all the states? Maybe incorporate the 2nd against all the states by way of the P & I clause? A Federal CC permit. Ban on violent felons, persons under a restraining order and mental patients as mentioned in Heller. If they leave "reasonable regulation" to the states there will be endless court cases about what is reasonable.
    Nope.

    Please consult amendment 10. TheFeral government is preventedby the Bill of Rights from interfering with things not specificallydelegated in the constitution.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    ConditionThree wrote:
    Gundude wrote:
    As the RTKBA is in the Federal Constitution, is there a possibility that the Feds will take over the gun laws from all the states? Maybe incorporate the 2nd against all the states by way of the P & I clause? A Federal CC permit. Ban on violent felons, persons under a restraining order and mental patients as mentioned in Heller. If they leave "reasonable regulation" to the states there will be endless court cases about what is reasonable.
    Nope.

    Please consult amendment 10. TheFeral government is preventedby the Bill of Rights from interfering with things not specificallydelegated in the constitution.
    but...but...but....Isn't the 2nd amendment specific to the Feds?
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  4. #4
    State Pioneer ConditionThree's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Shasta County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,231

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    ConditionThree wrote:
    Gundude wrote:
    As the RTKBA is in the Federal Constitution, is there a possibility that the Feds will take over the gun laws from all the states? Maybe incorporate the 2nd against all the states by way of the P & I clause? A Federal CC permit. Ban on violent felons, persons under a restraining order and mental patients as mentioned in Heller. If they leave "reasonable regulation" to the states there will be endless court cases about what is reasonable.
    Nope.

    Please consult amendment 10. TheFeral government is preventedby the Bill of Rights from interfering with things not specificallydelegated in the constitution.
    but...but...but....Isn't the 2nd amendment specific to the Feds?
    You have a point and I had not thought it completely through before posting. I had it in mind to bring up States rights from the perspective that the Federal government could not tell the States what restrictions would be reasonable for their jurisdiction. But as you've pointed out, the Pre-Heller and Pre-McDonald reading of the 2Aappears only applicable to the Federal enclaves when it is convenient and not directly to the States.

    This shows us how far afield we have come from 'shall not be infringed' we have traveled. You may be right about the aftermath of McDonald- there are many pending lawsuits to define what is reasonable. When the dust settles, Im sure California will be better for it.
    New to OPEN CARRY in California? Click and read this first...

    NA MALE SUBJ ON FOOT, LS NB 3 AGO HAD A HOLSTERED HANDGUN ON HIS RIGHT HIP. WAS NOT BRANDISHING THE WEAPON, BUT RP FOUND SUSPICIOUS.
    CL SUBJ IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW


    Support the 2A in California - Shop Amazon for any item and up to 15% of all purchases go back to the Calguns Foundation. Enter through either of the following links
    www.calgunsfoundation.org/amazon
    www.shop42a.com

  5. #5
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    This all goes back to the Federalist Papers really. There was a good argument presented by the federalists that the inclusion of the bill of rights (which the anti-federalists wanted) would strengthen the federal government by creating a level of ambiguity. If one reads article 1, section 8 of the federal constitution, then it is obvious that the ability to regulate firearms is not enumerated there. There is a very limited set of powers that the feds get to make laws about, and it's all in that one section. Then you add in the bill of rights, which adds in all of these protections for individual's rights.

    But why is the bill of rights even needed? The enumerated powers doesn't include the ability to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, or to restrict the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The BoR are basically preventing the feds from doing things that they are already prevented from doing.

    Meanwhile, ~230 years later, the federal government has laws that are both not listed in the enumerated powers, and violate the bill of rights. Lucky for us, the second amendment provides the people a way to re-establish our government when our representatives act like total idiots and forget how to read.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Mike Hunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Pedro, CA, California, USA
    Posts
    293

    Post imported post

    Gundude wrote:
    Maybe incorporate the 2nd against all the states by way of the P & I clause?
    In about a week and a half.

Posting Permissions

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