Massachusetts: This Is The Nation’s Toughest Gun Law

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If the states don't have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, then they likewise don't have the right to compel a woman to give birth against her will or deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Agreed.

Making a woman give birth is beyond statism. It is outright slavery.

Marriage is a contract. No government should have ever been involved in deciding who can enter into such a contract, except to determine legal capacity to do so.

 

[martybegan]

Again, the Second Amendment is NOT a state's rights issue.

Then neither is the 14th Amendment with regard to privacy rights and marriage.

If the states don't have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, then they likewise don't have the right to compel a woman to give birth against her will or deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

The 2nd is explicit in the document, unlike the "right" to an abortion or the "right" to SSM.

As usual your attempt at reasoning is ass backwards.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The 2nd is explicit in the document, unlike the "right" to an abortion or the "right" to SSM.

As usual your attempt at reasoning is ass backwards.

I think he is right on.

 

[Dana7360]

So much for conservatives' advocacy of "states' rights."

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If its not mentioned in the Constitution then it falls to the laws of the state. Guess what the 2nd Amendment covers ?

You seriously need to read the constitution.

Pay very close to the Commerce Clause.

What Massachusetts is doing is constitutional. They are regulating commerce.

You need to pay attention to the part that states shall not be infringed .

Who is infringing on a person's right own a gun?

 

[Pilot1]

Then neither is the 14th Amendment with regard to privacy rights and marriage.

If the states don't have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, then they likewise don't have the right to compel a woman to give birth against her will or deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

What does the 14th amendment have to do with marriage? Why is the government involved in marriage on any level? Stop creating straw men.

Who said anything about abortion? Where is abortions in the Bill of Rights? Again, with the straw men?

 

[martybegan]

The 2nd is explicit in the document, unlike the "right" to an abortion or the "right" to SSM.

As usual your attempt at reasoning is ass backwards.

I think he is right on.

I am a believer in incorporation of explicit rights via the 14th amendment.

Why should NY State be able to ban weapon possession if I have the RKBA granted to be by the US Constitution?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[QUOTE="C_Clayton_Jones, post: 19880615, member: 29614
Then neither is the 14th Amendment with regard to privacy rights and marriage.

If the states don't have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit, then they likewise don't have the right to compel a woman to give birth against her will or deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Conservatives can't have it both ways.

What does the 14th amendment have to do with marriage? Why is the government involved in marriage on any level? Stop creating straw men.

Who said anything about abortion? Where is abortions in the Bill of Rights? Again, with the straw men?[/QUOTE]
This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

State laws seeking to ban abortion or deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are unconstitutional because they violate the 14th Amendment.

Read Planned Parenthood v Casey and Obergefell v Hodges to learn about the rights protected by the 14th Amendment.

Just as the states don't have the right to compel a woman to give birth against her will or deny same-sex couples access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, so too do they not have the right to ban possession of handguns in violation of the 2nd Amendment.

Conservatives are inconsistent and wrong to believe that states have right to ban abortion but don't have the right to regulate firearms.

Again, conservatives can't have it both ways.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Why should NY State be able to ban weapon possession if I have the RKBA granted to be by the US Constitution?

This is an important misconception on all sides.

The Constitution does not grant rights. Rights already exist.

The 2nd Amendment tells the federal government that it cannot infringe on the right. Some could argue that the people have the right, and not states, and therefore, no regulation is legal, but forget that for now.

If the 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right, the 14th Amendment only applies if a state is denying an individual the "privileges and immunities" of other citizens, or if it violates due process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

State laws seeking to ban abortion or deny same-sex couples access to marriage law are unconstitutional because they violate the 14th Amendment.

I agree on same-sex marriage in that it impairs the obligation of a marriage contract, which adults are (or should be) free to enter.

I disagree on abortion being a 14th Amendment issue. I would go so far as to make a 13th Amendment argument on abortion laws before a 14th argument.

But, regardless of Constitutional law, it is fundamentally wrong for the state to compel a woman to carry and birth an unwanted child. It violates all notions of liberty. I cannot abide the state having that much power and authority. It is WRONG.

 

[LOki]

I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.

No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.

This is obvious.

What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.

There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.

There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.

The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.

You are making your intentions clear.

 

[martybegan]

Why should NY State be able to ban weapon possession if I have the RKBA granted to be by the US Constitution?

This is an important misconception on all sides.

The Constitution does not grant rights. Rights already exist.

The 2nd Amendment tells the federal government that it cannot infringe on the right. Some could argue that the people have the right, and not states, and therefore, no regulation is legal, but forget that for now.

If the 2nd Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right, the 14th Amendment only applies if a state is denying an individual the "privileges and immunities" of other citizens, or if it violates due process.

If I am denied a handgun and other US citizens can get one, how is that not denying "privileges and immunities"?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If I am denied a handgun and other US citizens can get one, how is that not denying "privileges and immunities"?

If a woman is being denied an abortion in one state, and other states allow it, how is that not denying privileges and immunities? It's a double-edged sword.

 

[martybegan]

If I am denied a handgun and other US citizens can get one, how is that not denying "privileges and immunities"?

If a woman is being denied an abortion in one state, and other states allow it, how is that not denying privileges and immunities? It's a double-edged sword.

Well considering I don't see the right to an abortion in the document (as a strict constructionist) that isn't an issue to me.

RKBA is explicit, and as a US Citizen I am entitled to it.

You note that the 2nd amendment doesn't limit itself to Congress, as the 1st does.

 

[whitehall]

Is Boston still part of Mass? The national crime rate is around 1669.05 while Boston's crime rate is around 2609.

 

[Lakhota]

I believe all gun owners should be required to have a permit and undergo the same requirements as outlined in the OP. Anyone not willing to undergo such requirements should not be allowed to have guns. It's a small inconvenience to help make us all more secure from gun violence.

No criminal, or person with criminal intentions, will submit to a background check, submit to any weapons registration, and certainly not obtain any kind of license in order to obtain a firearm.

This is obvious.

What is also obvious, is that all such measures are intentionally designed to be obstacles to gun ownership for self defense and other legal purposes.

There is only one motive in the wish to see the targets of criminal violence undefended.

There is only one kind of person who wishes to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed.

The people who wish to see the targets of criminal violence disarmed are the problem; they are the entire problem, and they are making their intentions clear.

You are making your intentions clear.

Who's talking about "disarming"?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well considering I don't see the right to an abortion in the document (as a strict constructionist) that isn't an issue to me.

But, it says "privileges and immunities" not rights.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

RKBA is explicit, and as a US Citizen I am entitled to it.

You are an individual. You are entitled to the right because you are a person. Rights precede and supersede government.

 

[whitehall]

What about the 26,000 violent crimes and 1,500 rapes in 2015? Does that all go away because prospective gun owners have to attend a class?

 

[martybegan]

Well considering I don't see the right to an abortion in the document (as a strict constructionist) that isn't an issue to me.

But, it says "privileges and immunities" not rights.

which are lesser than rights, so it would go to say that rights would be protected as well.

I'm a strict constructionist, not a textual absolutist.

 

[martybegan]

RKBA is explicit, and as a US Citizen I am entitled to it.

You are an individual. You are entitled to the right because you are a person. Rights precede and supersede government.

Yet under your interpretation of the 14th, States would be allowed to infringe on those rights.

I understand the difference between rights as a concept and how they are protected, so no need to go into that.