Alabama Voters Approve Gun Rights Amendment

[Missourian]

Alabama voters approved a constitutional amendment that affirms the right to bear arms is a "fundamental right" and any regulation of that right is subject to the highest level of judicial review.

Voters in Alabama approved an amendment to the state constitution that affirms that the right to bear arms is a “fundamental right"; any regulation of firearms is therefore subject to “strict scrutiny” in court. The amendment passed 72-28.

A similar measure passed in Missouri during the August primary. In both cases, legislators argued that the state required higher legal protections for gun rights. They are part of a larger wave of gun laws passed in red states in the past two years.

Alabama Voters Approve Gun Rights Amendment

 

[Mr. H.]

This is fine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right to bear arms was already in the Alabama Constitution.

 

[Missourian]

The right to bear arms was already in the Alabama Constitution.

Yup, it was also in the Missouri Constitution...what the amendment does is hold all future gun control laws to strict scrutiny in court.

"Strict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle."

"Legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because popular perception is that most laws subjected to this standard are struck down."

Read more about Strict Scrutiny - Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Alabama Voters Approve Gun Rights Amendment"

Which is in essence meaningless and nothing more than showcase politics, having little legal significance, if any.

Federal courts aren't subject to state constitutions, and those courts will likely continue to use intermediate scrutiny when reviewing Second Amendment cases:

D.C. Circuit Upholds Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban Under Intermediate Scrutiny D.C. Circuit Review

Moreover, even if a right is considered 'fundamental,' that does not necessarily 'mandate' a given court to subject a measure in question to strict scrutiny level of review.

Last, the likelihood of the state of Alabama, or any jurisdiction within the state, passing a restrictive gun control measure is so unlikely that the amendment is in practice moot.

 

[Kosh]

"Alabama Voters Approve Gun Rights Amendment"

Which is in essence meaningless and nothing more than showcase politics, having little legal significance, if any.

Federal courts aren't subject to state constitutions, and those courts will likely continue to use intermediate scrutiny when reviewing Second Amendment cases:

D.C. Circuit Upholds Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban Under Intermediate Scrutiny D.C. Circuit Review

Moreover, even if a right is considered 'fundamental,' that does not necessarily 'mandate' a given court to subject a measure in question to strict scrutiny level of review.

Last, the likelihood of the state of Alabama, or any jurisdiction within the state, passing a restrictive gun control measure is so unlikely that the amendment is in practice moot.

Like when the far left comes in and wants to do away with the second amendment from the piece of paper called the Constitution, in which the far left continues to show they do not understand?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

Are you one of the hundred thousand gang-bangers in Los Angeles and Riverside counties? Are you one of the Black or Mexican "people-of-color" who commit tens of thousands of gun crimes every year...and God only knows how many gun-related murders every year?

Well guess what. It isn't your fault! No it isn't. It's the fault of law-abiding white guys in red states who never murder one another, and who almost never commit gun crimes of any sort. It's their fault! The pansy left, who don't have the guts to accept responsibility for anything, who can't own up to anything, say so. That's because hate, emotional immaturity, and cowardice are the tenets of their religion. When one's ideology is built on a foundation of rubble, how long do you think it's going to stand? Until last Tuesday?

 

[turtledude]

"Alabama Voters Approve Gun Rights Amendment"

Which is in essence meaningless and nothing more than showcase politics, having little legal significance, if any.

Federal courts aren't subject to state constitutions, and those courts will likely continue to use intermediate scrutiny when reviewing Second Amendment cases:

D.C. Circuit Upholds Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban Under Intermediate Scrutiny D.C. Circuit Review

Moreover, even if a right is considered 'fundamental,' that does not necessarily 'mandate' a given court to subject a measure in question to strict scrutiny level of review.

Last, the likelihood of the state of Alabama, or any jurisdiction within the state, passing a restrictive gun control measure is so unlikely that the amendment is in practice moot.

Like when the far left comes in and wants to do away with the second amendment from the piece of paper called the Constitution, in which the far left continues to show they do not understand?

when that happens, the people will have to use their arms for the very reason the founders wanted them to have arms

 

[turtledude]

"Alabama Voters Approve Gun Rights Amendment"

Which is in essence meaningless and nothing more than showcase politics, having little legal significance, if any.

Federal courts aren't subject to state constitutions, and those courts will likely continue to use intermediate scrutiny when reviewing Second Amendment cases:

D.C. Circuit Upholds Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban Under Intermediate Scrutiny D.C. Circuit Review

Moreover, even if a right is considered 'fundamental,' that does not necessarily 'mandate' a given court to subject a measure in question to strict scrutiny level of review.

Last, the likelihood of the state of Alabama, or any jurisdiction within the state, passing a restrictive gun control measure is so unlikely that the amendment is in practice moot.

ah the amateur faux constitutional scholar confuses federal with state constitutional issues

the best state actions are ones that declare weapons made within the state are presumed NOT TO have moved in INTERSTATE COMMERCE which undercuts the bogus federal jurisdiction of crap like the 1934 NFA

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clearly those who composed the amendment and many of the voters who approved it are ignorant of current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Second Amendment enshrines the individual right to posses a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense. It does not enshrine the right of a citizen to possess any weapon pursuant to the self-defense right:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

New York's Safe Act, for example, and its provision prohibiting the possession of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR 15 has been upheld by the courts as Constitutional. The act does not disallow residents of New York to possess a firearm; indeed, many firearms are available to New York residents – semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, bolt action rifles, and shotguns. As long as a jurisdiction affords its residents access to some classifications of firearms – handguns in particular – the Second Amendment has not been violated.

In fact, given the Heller Court made no admonishment as to the level of judicial review to employ, there's no guarantee strict scrutiny would even doom a law prohibiting possessing an AR 15.

The issue, therefore, is not the level of judicial review, but the failure of Heller/McDonald to establish the legal criteria by which the courts would determine what weapons are 'in common use,' and subject to Constitutional protections, and which weapons are 'dangerous and unusual,' and not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Obviously AR 15s and AK 47s are in common use, where laws prohibiting their possession are un-Constitutional. But until such time as the Supreme Court makes such a determination, there is no 'right' to possess either firearm.

 

[turtledude]

Clearly those who composed the amendment and many of the voters who approved it are ignorant of current Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The Second Amendment enshrines the individual right to posses a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense. It does not enshrine the right of a citizen to possess any weapon pursuant to the self-defense right:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose[.]”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

New York's Safe Act, for example, and its provision prohibiting the possession of semi-automatic rifles such as the AR 15 has been upheld by the courts as Constitutional. The act does not disallow residents of New York to possess a firearm; indeed, many firearms are available to New York residents – semi-automatic pistols, revolvers, bolt action rifles, and shotguns. As long as a jurisdiction affords its residents access to some classifications of firearms – handguns in particular – the Second Amendment has not been violated.

In fact, given the Heller Court made no admonishment as to the level of judicial review to employ, there's no guarantee strict scrutiny would even doom a law prohibiting possessing an AR 15.

The issue, therefore, is not the level of judicial review, but the failure of Heller/McDonald to establish the legal criteria by which the courts would determine what weapons are 'in common use,' and subject to Constitutional protections, and which weapons are 'dangerous and unusual,' and not within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Obviously AR 15s and AK 47s are in common use, where laws prohibiting their possession are un-Constitutional. But until such time as the Supreme Court makes such a determination, there is no 'right' to possess either firearm.

what part of the constitution allows the federal government to regulate privately owned weapons


especially ones made in the state where it is owned?

 

[The Rabbi]

What starts in states often spreads to the federal gov't. Alabama had some strange gun laws on the books. They are right to take this step and it will be beneficial.
NY's Safe Act is a piece of shit commie inspired bogus crap law that has and will do nothing to stop criminals committing crimes and will make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. And of course it will be abused by law enforcement officials, because that's what happens.

 

[Vastator]

Roll Tide..

 

[Vastator]

What starts in states often spreads to the federal gov't. Alabama had some strange gun laws on the books. They are right to take this step and it will be beneficial.
NY's Safe Act is a piece of shit commie inspired bogus crap law that has and will do nothing to stop criminals committing crimes and will make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. And of course it will be abused by law enforcement officials, because that's what happens.

AL has some strange gun laws? Could you give some examples? Having just moved here; a heads up could be quite handy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Alabama can say anything it wants about gun rights, but it can't defy what the Supreme Court says about gun rights.

 

[zeke]

Turtle dude. You shoot anybody recently? Stop any crimes? Have any of your guns taken away? Just curious
I know you have a heavy load to carry what with all your fears of what could happen. So I was just wondering; according to people like you, over 6 thousand crimes were stopped with a gun YESTERDAY.

I just wondered if you got your shots in?