the black panther party was BIG on 2nd amendment rights
Tu Stultus Es
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Govt does something right for once, extends 2nd Amendment nationwide
Way to take my joke, turn it factual -then make me look like a fool.... . . sigh.eleven bravo wrote:
the black panther party was BIG on 2nd amendment rights
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
the 2nd amendment has never been incorporated by the supreme court which means its not a national law that applies to all the states
Tu Stultus Es
Until today right?eleven bravo wrote:
the 2nd amendment has never been incorporated by the supreme court which means its not a national law that applies to all the states
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
i just hate the line you seem to be toeing about government being bad with the title of this thread.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
yes, I've fired a weapon. still not sure what that has to do with anything?
and come on GS. you know me better than that. I'm a major advocate of marriage equality and I think oil companies are the scourge of the earth. just because I'm for gun rights doesn't put me in the same group as Mitch and Shifty.
also, I advocate requiring training for anyone who wants a weapon or CCW. I don't think you should be able to stroll into CVS and get a gun.
anyway I gotta go to work.
if it wasnt for government, you wouldnt be here. and, we both know, there are a lot of people, especially in this forum, that would actually prefer it that way.
Tu Stultus Es
i dont know enough about this case to say that but what I ded see was that it still leaves the room open for 2nd amendment interpretationDBBrinson1 wrote:
Until today right?eleven bravo wrote:
the 2nd amendment has never been incorporated by the supreme court which means its not a national law that applies to all the states
Tu Stultus Es
scratch that. youre right db, as of today, the 2nd amendment applies to all the states
Tu Stultus Es
So, does that mean, here in Cali, we can more easily open carry handguns?
I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is probably not. I believe permits (and limitations on how you carry) have been viewed as acceptable limitations on the right to bear arms, and this was aimed at outright bans on ownership in various areas.Ilocano wrote:
So, does that mean, here in Cali, we can more easily open carry handguns?
So then the Chicago gun ban is a lawsuit from being found unconstitutional... This ruling pleases me.eleven bravo wrote:
scratch that. youre right db, as of today, the 2nd amendment applies to all the states
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
I know.eleven bravo wrote:
i just hate the line you seem to be toeing about government being bad with the title of this thread.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
yes, I've fired a weapon. still not sure what that has to do with anything?
and come on GS. you know me better than that. I'm a major advocate of marriage equality and I think oil companies are the scourge of the earth. just because I'm for gun rights doesn't put me in the same group as Mitch and Shifty.
also, I advocate requiring training for anyone who wants a weapon or CCW. I don't think you should be able to stroll into CVS and get a gun.
anyway I gotta go to work.
if it wasnt for government, you wouldnt be here. and, we both know, there are a lot of people, especially in this forum, that would actually prefer it that way.
I just feel like they've been incompetent with a lot of things lately. I'm not against government, just against incompetence.
Permits and how/what you can carry can still be limited as far as I know. It looks as though the ruling and the SCOTUS is addressing outright bans, but I haven't read the actual ruling or the original lawsuit. If I recall correctly there was a ruling from the early 1900s (I want to say 1916 but I can't exactly remember) allowing the ability to regulate and limit firearms. Also, I'm guessing from a commercial standpoint there is still the ability to regulate and limit firearm purchases and ownership through annual taxes, registration and firearm licensing.SenorToenails wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is probably not. I believe permits (and limitations on how you carry) have been viewed as acceptable limitations on the right to bear arms, and this was aimed at outright bans on ownership in various areas.Ilocano wrote:
So, does that mean, here in Cali, we can more easily open carry handguns?
Utah gun permit business booming - in other states
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100628/us_nm/us_guns_utah
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100628/us_nm/us_guns_utah
I don't think registration or permits should be required. You shouldn't have to pay a fee or get permission to exercise your right to Keep and Bear Arms. States that do require registration or permits should be required to do so free of charge with fast turn around times.
I almost got a non-resident Utah permit so I could carry concealed in Nevada, but Nevada dropped Utah.burnzz wrote:
Utah gun permit business booming - in other states
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100628/us_nm/us_guns_utah
Last edited by west-phoenix-az (2010-06-28 14:38:56)
the story above mentions the Utah permit is valid in 31 states, and there are more permit holders, more instructors than residents of the state of Utah :Swest-phoenix-az wrote:
States that do require registration or permits should be required to do so free of charge with fast turn around times.
Too bad this ruling doesn't matter much because it didn't specify which gun laws could be upheld such as permits, limits, registration, fees, and such. But as eleven bravo said it does incorporate the 2ed amendment against all the states as of today. Though it was incorporated against the states within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals from April to September, 2009 in Nordyke v. King. This is pretty much a ruling against an outright ban on guns in states and cities, not on schools, federal buildings, or possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.
An interesting read in the ruling:
An interesting read in the ruling:
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO Opinion of the Court Page 28 wrote:
In debating the Fourteenth Amendment, the 39th Congress referred to the right to keep and bear arms as afundamental right deserving of protection. Senator Samuel Pomeroy described three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of Government.” 39th Cong.Globe 1182. One of these, he said, was the right to keep and bear arms:
“Every man . . . should have the right to bear armsfor the defense of himself and family and his homestead. And if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enters for purposes as vile as were known to slavery, then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world, where his wretched-ness will forever remain complete.”
MCDONALD v. CHICAGO Opinion of the Court Page 29 wrote:
Evidence from the period immediately following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment only confirms that the right to keep and bear arms was considered fundamental. In an 1868 speech addressing the disarmament of freedmen, Representative Stevens emphasized the necessity of the right: “Disarm a community and you rob them of the means of defending life. Take away their weapons of defense and you take away the inalienable right of defending liberty.” “The fourteenth amendment, now so happily adopted, settles the whole question.”
It's a good first step.MCDONALD v. CHICAGO Opinion of the Court Page 31 wrote:
In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep andbear arms among those fundamental rights necessary toour system of ordered liberty.
In a way, I agree. On the other hand, I think the beef people have with the 14th Amendment is that it essentially outlaws profiling, yet profiling is actually very effective for certain things -- like apprehending illegals.Diesel_dyk wrote:
I really have to laugh
You get people saying
"Booooo.... no 14th Amendment... states rights!! states rights!! states rights!!"
"repeal the 14th Amendment"
or
"Booooo... activist judges"
And then you get a case like this where the 2nd amendment is enforced on states and local govts because of the 14th amendment... and then you get
"Yeaaah... 14th Amendment rules" or at least that's what people would be saying if saying just that didn't run counter to another narrative dealing with anchor babies that is being spun. Hypocrisy and idiocy often go hand in hand.
IMO its a good decision... you take the whole constitution not just the bits that speak to you and the pieces that you like.
Now if we could only work on getting the individual being recognized as the unit to which individual rights attach and not this BS POS categorical approach that SCOTUS uses to excuse certain types of discrimination to exist.
Yeah but macbet, mitch, and shift are all weird. normal is still hippy, you just hate everyone a little moreeleven bravo wrote:
no it was a simple fucking question you dumb ass.
i just think its funny how being conservative is the new hippy for 2010. something kids do because they wanna be different but end up being exactly the same. macbeth, mitch, shifty and you are perfect examples.
the supreme court already ruled that the possession of firearms does not represent an economic activity therefore the power of congress to regulate is null.
Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-06-28 16:08:19)
Tu Stultus Es
I'm not sure if it's that simple though.eleven bravo wrote:
the supreme court already ruled that the possession of firearms does not represent an economic activity therefore the power of congress to regulate is null.
Congress regulates activities that aren't economic all the time. Take, for example, Congress's ban on "partial birth" abortions. That's not really an economic activity -- it's just social policy.
Last edited by Turquoise (2010-06-28 16:12:58)
Since when was the Supreme Court 'the govt'?
Fuck Israel
checks and balances. they are final word on the law of the land.
Tu Stultus Es
what GS said, it's a cog in the three-branched machine.Dilbert_X wrote:
Since when was the Supreme Court 'the govt'?
what about the buying and selling of firearms as an act of commerce?eleven bravo wrote:
the supreme court already ruled that the possession of firearms does not represent an economic activity therefore the power of congress to regulate is null.
The main reason I support registration of both owners and sellers is due to the large amount of weapons stolen and illegally sold then used in crimes. That's also why I support guidelines regarding storing firearms under lock and key in the home when you aren't there. Perhaps you could build in a credit or other reward system for owners that maintain a positive record regarding the storage and for sellers asking for and providing all the legal requirements.west-phoenix-az wrote:
I don't think registration or permits should be required. You shouldn't have to pay a fee or get permission to exercise your right to Keep and Bear Arms. States that do require registration or permits should be required to do so free of charge with fast turn around times.I almost got a non-resident Utah permit so I could carry concealed in Nevada, but Nevada dropped Utah.burnzz wrote:
Utah gun permit business booming - in other states
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100628/us_nm/us_guns_utah
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Govt does something right for once, extends 2nd Amendment nationwide