| Author | Post |
|---|
nrepuyan
Regular Member
|
Posted: Wed Oct 7th, 2009 01:33 pm |
|
http://www.fox2now.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-supreme-court-guns,0,6135651.story
opinions on this? what changes could this bring in the future? pros and cons?
|
SlackwareRobert
Regular Member
| Joined: | Tue Jun 10th, 2008 |
| Location: | Alabama |
| Posts: | 962 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 7th, 2009 03:28 pm |
|
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?
|
HYRYSC
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 7th, 2009 06:55 pm |
|
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.
|
SavageOne
Regular Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 8th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 11:46 am |
|
| 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.
|
HYRYSC
Regular Member
| Joined: | Mon Jan 12th, 2009 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 21 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 8th, 2009 06:04 pm |
|
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.
|
Lunie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 05:43 am |
|
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.
|
Lunie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 06:05 am |
|
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."
|
jmlefler
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Oct 25th, 2009 12:56 pm |
|
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
|
Lunie
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Oct 26th, 2009 12:37 am |
|
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
|
Current time is 07:44 am | |
|
