President Trump reveals his administration is working on NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY

[DonGlock26]

Authorize carry that is already in the Constitution but courts allow states to restrict it.

The 2nd authorizes carry.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The 2nd authorizes carry.

Get a court to decide that.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

This could be done by way of the Supreme Court. The Trump administration could encourage new legal challenges that interpret the Second and Fourteenth Amendments as incorporating a "national right to carry" across state lines, effectively nullifying restrictive state laws.

Bullshit. No standing. Would have to come from a state court.

 

[JGalt]

Bullshit. No standing. Would have to come from a state court.

Your premise is incorrect. A Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Second and Fourteenth Amendments as a "national right to carry" would establish supreme federal law. It would carry full nationwide standing and could not be challenged by a state court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on interpreting the U.S. Constitution, which includes the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Through the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal constitutional law supersedes any conflicting state laws, statutes, or local ordinances.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is the exact legal mechanism the Court already uses to apply, or "incorporate," federal Bill of Rights protections, including the Second Amendment,against state and local governments.

If the Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to carry across state lines, any restrictive state law prohibiting out-of-state carry or mandating "may-issue" permit requirements would be automatically rendered unconstitutional and unenforceable, as seen in previous landmark rulings like New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

In other words, federal courts, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, have exclusive jurisdiction over federal constitutional questions. A definitive Supreme Court ruling on this matter would immediately bind all state and local jurisdictions, rendering state court involvement unnecessary to establish its validity.

 

[Chuz Life]

The carry permit for law abiding Americans is called the 2nd amendment.
It is time for this to happen.

If ever you are willing and interested, I wonder if we could have a discussion on the above.

Maybe I'm wrong, and you're right, I'm willing to risk it.

I just start by saying that the right to keep and bear arms does not come from the Second Amendment.

The people of the U.S. were keeping and bearing arms for 15 Years from the time the nation was founded, and long before the 2nd Amendment was written.

Hell, "The people" had, kept and used their firearms in the Revolutionary War, before the nation was even established.

I hope you agree that is not a trivial fact.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Even if it passes, it wil be caught up in the courts for decades in arguments about the requirements or non-requirements of the home state permit cs the requirements for the second state.

What we truly need is a National “No-Gins” system incorporated into our drivers license system and run by the states.

A national WHAT?

 

[DonGlock26]

If ever you are willing and interested, I wonder if we could have a discussion on the above.

Maybe I'm wrong, and you're right, I'm willing to risk it.

I just start by saying that the right to keep and bear arms does not come from the Second Amendment.

The people of the U.S. were keeping and bearing arms for 15 Years from the time the nation was founded, and long before the 2nd Amendment was written.

Hell, "The people" had, kept and used their firearms in the Revolutionary War, before the nation was even established.

I hope you agree that is not a trivial fact.

It's explained in the DOI:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Declaration of Independence - Text of the Declaration of Independence | Britannica

Declaration of Independence - Text of the Declaration of Independence:

www.britannica.com

The Constitution just codifies it in writing.

 

[DonGlock26]

Get a court to decide that.

That's not congress as you suggested.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This could be done by way of the Supreme Court. The Trump administration could encourage new legal challenges that interpret the Second and Fourteenth Amendments as incorporating a "national right to carry" across state lines, effectively nullifying restrictive state laws.

The court established a national, 2A protected, right right to carry a gun in Bruen.
There's zero constitutional argument that a state can prohibit people who do not live in that state from carrying a gun

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Your premise is incorrect. A Supreme Court ruling interpreting the Second and Fourteenth Amendments as a "national right to carry" would establish supreme federal law. It would carry full nationwide standing and could not be challenged by a state court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on interpreting the U.S. Constitution, which includes the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Through the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, federal constitutional law supersedes any conflicting state laws, statutes, or local ordinances.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause is the exact legal mechanism the Court already uses to apply, or "incorporate," federal Bill of Rights protections, including the Second Amendment,against state and local governments.

If the Supreme Court found that the Constitution guarantees a right to carry across state lines, any restrictive state law prohibiting out-of-state carry or mandating "may-issue" permit requirements would be automatically rendered unconstitutional and unenforceable, as seen in previous landmark rulings like New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

In other words, federal courts, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, have exclusive jurisdiction over federal constitutional questions. A definitive Supreme Court ruling on this matter would immediately bind all state and local jurisdictions, rendering state court involvement unnecessary to establish its validity.

Why do you not realize that there has to be a case for the Supreme Court to review before they can make a ruling? You cannot file a federal case unless more than one state is involved. These other cases were appealed when the state courts ruled.

All you have is supposition of a ruling but no case in which to base it on. Perhaps you should look at the previous Supreme Court rulings like the one you mentioned, and you will find they all originated in state courts against actions by states.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's explained in the DOI:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Declaration of Independence - Text of the Declaration of Independence | Britannica

Declaration of Independence - Text of the Declaration of Independence:

www.britannica.com

The Constitution just codifies it in writing.

The DOI is not a law. It's value in regulation is exactly nil.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's not congress as you suggested.

When did I say anything about Congress?

 

[Dante]

President Trump reveals his administration is working on NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY​

You appear to be ignorant and sloppy. People like you are your own worst enemy.

Dante supports national gun rights, and supports national vs state gun laws. People like you make it difficult.

 

[Dante]

This could be done by way of the Supreme Court. The Trump administration could encourage new legal challenges that interpret the Second and Fourteenth Amendments as incorporating a "national right to carry" across state lines, effectively nullifying restrictive state laws.

The Trump administration is already all over the place on constitutional issues. Go ahead and put all of your eggs in their basket.

 

[DonGlock26]

You appear to be ignorant and sloppy. People like you are your own worst enemy.

Dante supports national gun rights, and supports national vs state gun laws. People like you make it difficult.

Your fifth grade writing level is amusing. I’ll give you that.

 

[DonGlock26]

When did I say anything about Congress?

Post #2. Are you losing it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Post #2. Are you losing it?

You said it wasn't necessary. You have yet to prove that hypothesis.

 

[Dante]

You're nothing but a garden variety imbecile.

Yes, you are.

Your fifth grade writing level is amusing. I’ll give you that.

The Comity Clause, formally known as the Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2).

 

[Chuz Life]

It's explained in the DOI:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Declaration of Independence - Text of the Declaration of Independence | Britannica

Declaration of Independence - Text of the Declaration of Independence:

www.britannica.com

The Constitution just codifies it in writing.

Correct, as far as being codified.

I already got that part. We both agree on that.

I'm talking about the right itself and how much our right to keep and bear predates the Constitution and even the DOI, for that matter.

The only reason I raise this point is that too many people on BOTH sides keep trying to promote the idea that our right to keep and bear arms comes from the 2nd Amendment, when it doesn't.

The 2nd Amendment could be repealed tomorrow, and we would still have the right to keep and bear arms that our founders had, even before the Revolutionary War!

 

[Chuz Life]

Correct, as far as being codified.

I already got that part. We both agree on that.

I'm talking about the right itself and how much our right to keep and bear predates the Constitution and even the DOI, for that matter.

The only reason I raise this point is that too many people on BOTH sides keep trying to promote the idea that our right to keep and bear arms comes from the 2nd Amendment, when it doesn't.

The 2nd Amendment could be repealed tomorrow, and we would still have the right to keep and bear arms that our founders had, even before the Revolutionary War!

For additional context and consideration.

the Second Amendment (Bill of Rights) is not the Government telling us what out rights are to be.

The Bill of Right (including the 2nd Amendment) was the people telling the Government what our rights are.

Leftardz have it completely ass backwards.