User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:22:42 PM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:23:02 PM EDT
[#2]
If we could throw out all the Federal Bullshit and leave it all up to the states, I would be fine with that. The smart states would prosper and have freedom, the dumbass ones like NY would be fail slums until they stopped being so authoritarian.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:23:20 PM EDT
[#3]
"Shall not be infringed."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:24:23 PM EDT
[#4]
It's my right to keep, not something that can be taken away by any government, local or federal. It is my freedom.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:24:54 PM EDT
[#5]
Then the 14th says all the bill of rights apply to all state and local governments. I personally don't agree with the principle as it was added after the civil war, but that is what it says. If the folks up in NY want to roll over for this and keep electing libtards that's their business. We'll run things like we want to down here in GA. That's the way it was designed to work, but the 14th changed all that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:24:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
"Shall not be infringed." This. Go back and read the 10th again... Look for the word respectively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:15 PM EDT
[#7]
McDonald v Chicago ya big dope
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:15 PM EDT
[#8]
McDonald v. Chicago held that the 2nd applies to states and localities, too, by way of the 14th's Equal Protection clause.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:24 PM EDT
[#9]
I guess the ink smeared where it says but can be infringed by the state yo
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:38 PM EDT
[#10]
This is a bit of an internal debate for me, as well. I remain torn on the root issue, however the reality of the situation is the 10th amendment died a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:25:45 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: I had a thought. Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government. So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves. Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me. What do you think? I think you should read the NY state Constitution. http://www.dos.ny.gov/info/constitution.htm And http://law.onecle.com/new-york/civil-rights/ Article 2, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law provides: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:26:23 PM EDT
[#12]
You would be right... if it weren't for incorporation doctrine.
Now if you want to debate the legitimacy of incorporation doctrine, that's another conversation. But the Supreme Court says the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. Edit: Came in late. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:26:31 PM EDT
[#13]
14th Amendment also says hello.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:26:55 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
It's my right to keep, not something that can be taken away by any government, local or federal. It is my freedom. This, and it was given to all of us by a higher power than government and therefore government cannot take it away, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence make this clear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:27:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
McDonald v. Chicago held that the 2nd applies to states and localities, too, by way of the 14th's Equal Protection clause. +1 This was a very big deal. A few years ago, the OP would have a case. Now, no way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:27:21 PM EDT
[#16]
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always.
I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:27:22 PM EDT
[#17]
As are 20k + others.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:32:32 PM EDT
[#18]
The bill of rights is a "hands off" list for government on every level.
There is a lot of room for states to do their own thing but within the context of the baseline rules. States can't infringe on free speech or due process, the bill of rights is the supreme law of the land. Read up on the supremacy clause and Fourteenth Amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:32:44 PM EDT
[#19]
14th Amendment.
Prior to the 14th, what you said would be accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:32:57 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government. NOTHING in that statement is even remotely within the same galaxy of being accurate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:33:19 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always. I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers. Well not quite. The doctrine is called incorporation and not all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:33:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
"Shall not be infringed." Your rights were infringed last night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:34:18 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
"Shall not be infringed." And then there is that part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:34:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
I had a thought. Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government. So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves. Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me. What do you think? QFT! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:34:56 PM EDT
[#25]
So the federal government can't violate a natural right but a state can? No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:35:11 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
McDonald v Chicago ya big dope DING DING DING |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:36:02 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
"Shall not be infringed." By the federal gov't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:36:22 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I had a thought. Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government. So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves. Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me. What do you think? QFT! NO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:37:51 PM EDT
[#29]
14th Amendment
Heller DC CHICAGO MILLER Look em up and get back to us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:38:07 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Shall not be infringed." By the federal gov't. Natural born rights can not be infringed by anyone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:38:09 PM EDT
[#31]
There are more than 10 Amendments.
The 14th amendment forbids the States from abridging the "privileges and immunities" of Citizens, therefore requiring the States to recognize the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:38:26 PM EDT
[#32]
This is actually one of the most intelligent constitutional Q&A sessions I've read on this site in the past few years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:38:57 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Shall not be infringed." By the federal gov't. Read McDonald v. Chicago, and the 14th Amendment, and get back to us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:39:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always. I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers. Well not quite. The doctrine is called incorporation and not all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights There are no absolutes in law, but what I posted is generally true. It is true enough for the purposes of this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:39:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Make that argument for the 13th and 1st Amendment and see how far ya get.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:40:54 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The BoR now applies to the states. Though it didn't always. I'd be fine with the BoR not applying to the states if the Federal .gov was restricted to its constitutional size. Sure, some states would suck ass, but they would be states filled with ass suckers. Well not quite. The doctrine is called incorporation and not all parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the states. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights There are no absolutes in law, but what I posted is generally true. It is true enough for the purposes of this thread. Horseshoes and hand grenades? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:41:58 PM EDT
[#37]
The constitution and its amendments can not be subverted by state laws.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:43:08 PM EDT
[#38]
Did you read the 14th amendment?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:43:48 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
There are more than 10 Amendments. The 14th amendment forbids the States from abridging the "privileges and immunities" of Citizens, therefore requiring the States to recognize the individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS incorporated most of the first 10 amendments via due process, not P&I even though P&I makes more sense... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:43:55 PM EDT
[#40]
Shall not be infringed?
Can states remove freedom of religion and speech? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:44:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Shall not be infringed." By the federal gov't. Natural born rights can not be infringed by anyone. All rights can be infringed. Natural rights are just as subjective as anything else. The only rights you have are the ones that have been fought for to be protected. A natural right means nothing; protected rights mean everything. The only thing between a protected right and nothing is the people willing to fight for it. In many places, economic rights (freebes) are a natural right. They fight for it, but I would bet you wouldn't consider free food a natural right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:45:17 PM EDT
[#42]
I think that's bullshit
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:45:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Shall not be infringed." Your rights were infringed last night. Insofar as an irrelevant piece of paper was signed by a shithead, my rights were infringed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:46:13 PM EDT
[#44]
Wasn't there a civil war or something fought over a matter of some states doing whatever the hell they wanted? To those of us behind enemy lines, sadly, "states rights" has become synonymous with civil (gun) rights violations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:46:28 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: "Shall not be infringed." And then there is that part. And there are many here, who have stated in no uncertain terms, that people who believe that are retards. I have not noticed many of them posting that lately, and others who have come around, or have they.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:46:45 PM EDT
[#46]
Heller ruled the 2nd protects handguns in the home.
McDonald incorporated that to the states. Thats the scope of the 2nd under current case law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:47:24 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
I had a thought. Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government. So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves. Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me. What do you think? I think Cuomos Law violates NYS Civil Service Law § 4. Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. //law.onecle.com/new-york/civil-rights/CVR04_4.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:49:00 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
I had a thought. Take a look at the constitution. The second amendment says that congress (the federal government) does not have the right to take away weapons. Then in the 10th amendment, it says that states reserve all rights not given to the federal government. So...it seems to me that an individual state can pass laws against guns if it wants to, while the Federal government is prohibited. The purpose of the 10th amendment was to allow states to govern themselves. Granted, I would never want to live in a state like that...but that is what it seems to me. What do you think? Can you diagram a sentence? If so do so and you will have your answer  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:49:33 PM EDT
[#49]
I think you're forgetting that federal law trumps state and that the Bill of Rights is a list of rights afforded EVERY citizen, regardless of state, by their Creator. Meaning the new law in NY is BREAKING federal law and suppressing the inalienable human rights of citizens.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2013 7:50:31 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
"Shall not be infringed." By the federal gov't. Which version is correct? 1. Amendment II - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 2. Amendment II - "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed by the federal government." |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
