House Weighs Bill to Make Gun Permits Valid Across State Lines

[JWBooth]

I love the good intentions inherent in the bill, but am loathe for the federal government to be dictating to the states. Better to be striking down federal laws that inhibit ownership, restrict state action, and stand in the way of liberties and freedom.

What happens when the state restrictes your personal liberty's?

An annoyance, perhaps an outrage, to be taken up with the state's legislators. A level of government more close to home. If it cannot be corrected, and is egregious enough, I do as my ancestors did when their homes became intolerable or greater opportunities presented. I move.

 

[Vanquish]

They're not.

States can add MORE restrictions...not less. That's the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution at work.

Take for example drinking laws. 19 is the age of majority in Alabama...but 19 year old's can't drink. Why? Because Alabama gets federal money for roads if the state's legislators change the law. Alabama can make things MORE restrictive than the Constitution...but not less. Make sense?

 

[Skull Pilot]

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

No, I don't.

Using your standard, people should be to own nuclear weapons. Criminals should be allowed to own guns. People with severe mental disability should be able to as well. No court has ever endorsed that standard, and for good reason.

For one fissionable material is highly regulated and almost impossible to purify to the extent needed for a bomb and much of the equipment and materials needed aside from the fissionable material are astronomically expensive and highly regulated as well. But if I chose i could pretty much build a nuke sans the fuel. It would be useless but I could do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love the good intentions inherent in the bill, but am loathe for the federal government to be dictating to the states. Better to be striking down federal laws that inhibit ownership, restrict state action, and stand in the way of liberties and freedom.

What happens when the state restrictes your personal liberty's?

An annoyance, perhaps an outrage, to be taken up with the state's legislators. A level of government more close to home. If it cannot be corrected, and is egregious enough, I do as my ancestors did when their homes became intolerable or greater opportunities presented. I move.

Yes you can move but what about those who can't? Remember Katrina? Most inner city people can't eve offord the basics of life much less move

 

[Skull Pilot]

They're not.

States can add MORE restrictions...not less. That's the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution at work.

Take for example drinking laws. 19 is the age of majority in Alabama...but 19 year old's can't drink. Why? Because Alabama gets federal money for roads if the state's legislators change the law. Alabama can make things MORE restrictive than the Constitution...but not less. Make sense?

A right to drink is not in the Constitution.

Can a state impede the rights of free speech, religion, or any other right enumerated in the Constitution except for the right to bear arms?

Why is that one right deemed less important than all the others?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

They're not.

States can add MORE restrictions...not less. That's the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution at work.

Take for example drinking laws. 19 is the age of majority in Alabama...but 19 year old's can't drink. Why? Because Alabama gets federal money for roads if the state's legislators change the law. Alabama can make things MORE restrictive than the Constitution...but not less. Make sense?

being restrictive is depriving

one more time gun ownership is allowing a person to defend themself added restriction is depriving them the freedom to defend their life.

Drinking age limit is a far sterch........

 

[Yurt]

They're not.

States can add MORE restrictions...not less. That's the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution at work.

Take for example drinking laws. 19 is the age of majority in Alabama...but 19 year old's can't drink. Why? Because Alabama gets federal money for roads if the state's legislators change the law. Alabama can make things MORE restrictive than the Constitution...but not less. Make sense?

that is not accurate. if the law makes it more strict and conflicts with federal law, then no they cannot.

 

[Yurt]

if the states hadn't already granted the feds the authority yes they could. But the states gave juridiction to the feds in those matters.

actually they did not. the US constitution and then also scotus denied the states the ability to interfere with those rights. the states did not grant the federal government those powers.

Yes the states gave the feds the authority when it ratified the Coinstitution. If the states did not grant the FEDS THE AUTHORITY THE STATES KEEP THE AUTHORITY.
GUNS FALL UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY AS A RIGHT PROTECTED. MARRIAGE ISN'T ONE OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Therefore it falls under states juadiction

only 13 states did that.

so what about the other states?

 

[JWBooth]

What happens when the state restrictes your personal liberty's?

An annoyance, perhaps an outrage, to be taken up with the state's legislators. A level of government more close to home. If it cannot be corrected, and is egregious enough, I do as my ancestors did when their homes became intolerable or greater opportunities presented. I move.

Yes you can move but what about those who can't? Remember Katrina? Most inner city people can't eve offord the basics of life much less move

Those who can't? This argument has merits, but has been used all to often to allow, even encourage, blanket solutions to "problems" large and small.

Abortion for one example. Roe v Wade must be allowed to stand, or worse, right to life constitutional amendment must be passed because if R v W were to be struck down Mississippi might restrict abortions out of existence while Maine might make them as accessible as flu shots.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.

No state is allowed to supersede the rights of speech or religion. Why should a state be allowed to interfere with the right to bear arms?

Actually, when a religious rite or free speech endangers another person's life or restricts their free exercise of their rights, the States and Fed can and have restricted both Religion and Speech. I'm specifically thinking of the famous "FIRE!" in a crowded theater argument.

 

[Vanquish]

I never said there was a right to drink. Stop clouding the issue.

And yes, the Supremacy Clause means that Federal Law wins over State Law. A state can add MORE restrictions, but can't make laws LESS restrictive than Federal law. I deal with this on a weekly basis in my work as a lawyer, so I'm going to side with myself on this one. K? thx.

 

[Skull Pilot]

This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.

No state is allowed to supersede the rights of speech or religion. Why should a state be allowed to interfere with the right to bear arms?

Actually, when a religious rite or free speech endangers another person's life or restricts their free exercise of their rights, the States and Fed can and have restricted both Religion and Speech. I'm specifically thinking of the famous "FIRE!" in a crowded theater argument.

Me carrying a weapon does not endanger anyone's life.

In fact when I am carrying none of you would even know it so how am I endangering anyone's life?

The fact is that if I shoot anyone, it's the act of shooting my weapon that may or my not be legal and it is up to me to prove that I had a defensible reason to discharge my weapon. Simply carrying a weapon poses no danger to anyone.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I never said there was a right to drink. Stop clouding the issue.

And yes, the Supremacy Clause means that Federal Law wins over State Law. A state can add MORE restrictions, but can't make laws LESS restrictive than Federal law. I deal with this on a weekly basis in my work as a lawyer, so I'm going to side with myself on this one. K? thx.

So a state can make the right to free speech or freedom of religion more restricted?

How by requiring licensing to speak or practice religion?

And do you think states would be able to pull that off without legal fallout?

 

[martybegan]

I never said there was a right to drink. Stop clouding the issue.

And yes, the Supremacy Clause means that Federal Law wins over State Law. A state can add MORE restrictions, but can't make laws LESS restrictive than Federal law. I deal with this on a weekly basis in my work as a lawyer, so I'm going to side with myself on this one. K? thx.

A state can make a law more restrictive only if such law meets its own consitutional requirments, AND does not infringe upon the limits placed upon government by the federal consitution, as incorporated by the 14th amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

actually they did not. the US constitution and then also scotus denied the states the ability to interfere with those rights. the states did not grant the federal government those powers.

Yes the states gave the feds the authority when it ratified the Coinstitution. If the states did not grant the FEDS THE AUTHORITY THE STATES KEEP THE AUTHORITY.
GUNS FALL UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY AS A RIGHT PROTECTED. MARRIAGE ISN'T ONE OF THE RIGHTS PROTECTED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Therefore it falls under states juadiction

only 13 states did that.

so what about the other states?

History of how a state might be come a state might help decide this

The State of Iowa

Iowans wrote and approved a state constitution. Congress approved it. On December 28, 1846, President James K. Polk signed a law making Iowa the 29th state.

Almost 60 years after the passage of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Iowa completed all the requirements for statehood. Iowa citizens could vote for president. They could elect senators and representatives to Congress. They had a state legislature. They could elect their own governor and judges.

The Path to Statehood « Iowa Pathways

Text of The Northwest Ordinance

 

[Polk]

if it restricts or obstructs the right to carry arms, it falls under the second amendment.

That only works if you assume the right to bare arms is an absolute.

The right to life is A-B-S-O-L-U-T-E.

.

Then I'm guessing you don't support the death penalty.

 

[Polk]

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

No, I don't.

Using your standard, people should be to own nuclear weapons. Criminals should be allowed to own guns. People with severe mental disability should be able to as well. No court has ever endorsed that standard, and for good reason.

oh the old nuclear weapons argument.
In U.S. vs. Miller your concern has been taken care of

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Can a person afford to buy a nuke and be able to carry it?

You realize the argument in US v. Miller actually runs counter to your position, right? That statement is the part of the rationale for upholding the National Firearms Act as constitutional.

 

[Polk]

I think "shall not be infringed" is pretty ******* absolute, don't you?

No, I don't.

Using your standard, people should be to own nuclear weapons. Criminals should be allowed to own guns. People with severe mental disability should be able to as well. No court has ever endorsed that standard, and for good reason.

nuclear weapons are pretty well regulated. One could assume the private owner of such a weapon would intend more than the defense of his home and person. Fully equipped and armed aircraft carriers would fall into that category as well.
Prohibiting the insane and violent people from owning weapons would fall under the intended meaning of the welfare clause.
Where the slope begins to get slippery, is when government limits the use of personal combat weapons, up to and including fully automatics.
My ownership of a 20 megaton bomb presents a clear danger to the public. My ownership of a Thompson sub-machine gun does not.
The dozen guns of various types stored withing 6 feet of where I sit pose no danger to you or anyone else. I, myself, pose you no danger until you enter my home uninvited.

Now you're contradicting yourself. Your original argument is that the "right to bare arms" is absolute. Now you're arguing that it is absolute, but only if the weapon is intended to defend "home and person". You also claim to support prohibitions against weapons ownership by the "insane and violent". That, by definition, means you don't consider the right absolute.

 

[Polk]

Even though I agree with the bill I don't think the feds have any right telling another state how to gov. itself

That's the real issue I see with it. This seems like an expansion of Federal Powers. There is precedent for it: Think about how the EPA regulations over rule the State regulations. But I'm not excited about it. And I'm kinda puzzled a lot of small government types are.

You could fit all the actual "small government" types in America in to a 20x20 room. Most kvetching about "small government" is by people who want the government out of some areas, and a massive government in others.

 

[Polk]

This thread is why the right's claims about "state's rights" are laughable.

No state is allowed to supersede the rights of speech or religion. Why should a state be allowed to interfere with the right to bear arms?

States are allowed to interfere with both of those rights. If my religion mandated human sacrifice, I couldn't kill you because of it.