Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 3/29/2012 3:07:06 PM EDT
This was in my local newspaper.

I'm hoping someone can comment on the difference between a constitutional right, and a state legislative-granted right.

It is in regards to Iowa seeking the "stand your ground" type laws, in light of the Trayvon shooting.

http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/let-florida-inform-iowa-gun-law-debate/article_e5f44f46-7942-11e1-bf5f-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=story

Certainly, this civilian had a Constitutional right to own a weapon. He had a state legislative-granted right,
not a Constitutional right, to conceal it on his person in public. And, he had a legislative-granted right to stand his
ground and use his weapon if he felt his life was in danger.


Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:08:19 PM EDT
What a load of tripe.............
Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:12:18 PM EDT
If our legislature tries to use this to enact some bullshit laws, our new Governor damn sure better have the balls to break out the veto pen
Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:12:53 PM EDT
Seemed self-explanatory
Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:13:02 PM EDT
Rights can only be granted from our creator.
Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:13:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Reaper:
This was in my local newspaper.

I'm hoping someone can comment on the difference between a constitutional right, and a state legislative-granted right.

It is in regards to Iowa seeking the "stand your ground" type laws, in light of the Trayvon shooting.

http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/let-florida-inform-iowa-gun-law-debate/article_e5f44f46-7942-11e1-bf5f-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=story

Certainly, this civilian had a Constitutional right to own a weapon. He had a state legislative-granted right,
not a Constitutional right, to conceal it on his person in public. And, he had a legislative-granted right to stand his
ground and use his weapon if he felt his life was in danger.




A constitutional right is a right, positive or negative, enshrined by the Constitution.

A state-legislative- granted right is the ability to engage in a certain activity, which would typically be illegal, in specific circumstances as determined by state law. It affirms the ability to engage in conduct beyond what is constitutionally protected.
Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:15:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JAD:
Originally Posted By The_Reaper:
This was in my local newspaper.

I'm hoping someone can comment on the difference between a constitutional right, and a state legislative-granted right.

It is in regards to Iowa seeking the "stand your ground" type laws, in light of the Trayvon shooting.

http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/let-florida-inform-iowa-gun-law-debate/article_e5f44f46-7942-11e1-bf5f-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=story

Certainly, this civilian had a Constitutional right to own a weapon. He had a state legislative-granted right,
not a Constitutional right, to conceal it on his person in public. And, he had a legislative-granted right to stand his
ground and use his weapon if he felt his life was in danger.




A constitutional right is a right, positive or negative, enshrined by the Constitution.

A state-legislative- granted right is the ability to engage in a certain activity, which would typically be illegal, in specific circumstances as determined by state law. It affirms the ability to engage in conduct beyond what is constitutionally protected.


Okay. Good explanation.

So, if the Constitutional right to keep and BARE arms has been construed to mean "carry", what does Florida law do?

Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:36:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Reaper:

So, if the Constitutional right to keep and BARE arms has been construed to mean "carry", what does Florida law do?



Allow you to wear short sleeves in Florida?
Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:41:28 PM EDT
I guess it would depend on your state's constitution. In Texas, the state constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms, but specifically states that the state legislature has 'the power to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime'.

So, in our case here in Texas, unfortunately, that would be a correct assessment. Carrying a concealed weapon is a privilege regulated by The State.
Link Posted: 3/29/2012 3:44:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By The_Reaper:
Originally Posted By JAD:
Originally Posted By The_Reaper:
This was in my local newspaper.

I'm hoping someone can comment on the difference between a constitutional right, and a state legislative-granted right.

It is in regards to Iowa seeking the "stand your ground" type laws, in light of the Trayvon shooting.

http://qctimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/let-florida-inform-iowa-gun-law-debate/article_e5f44f46-7942-11e1-bf5f-001a4bcf887a.html?mode=story

Certainly, this civilian had a Constitutional right to own a weapon. He had a state legislative-granted right,
not a Constitutional right, to conceal it on his person in public. And, he had a legislative-granted right to stand his
ground and use his weapon if he felt his life was in danger.




A constitutional right is a right, positive or negative, enshrined by the Constitution.

A state-legislative- granted right is the ability to engage in a certain activity, which would typically be illegal, in specific circumstances as determined by state law. It affirms the ability to engage in conduct beyond what is constitutionally protected.


Okay. Good explanation.

So, if the Constitutional right to keep and BARE arms has been construed to mean "carry", what does Florida law do?


Yes, but the Supreme Court of the United States decided that governments have the authority to determine who can and cannot own firearms or carry them in public. So, as it currently stands, the interpretation that the US Constitution protects a blanket right to carry a gun does not match the existing law of the land as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I don't agree with their position or interpretation on this issue, but it is what it is.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 1:23:43 AM EDT
Would it be more accurate to say that the Constitution preserves the right to keep and bare arms, and the Florida law simply doesn't get in the way?

I have heartburn over a law giving me a "right".

"allowing" something, or "permitting" something is one thing, but I don't need a law saying it is okay for me to live and breathe. At least not yet.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 1:34:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
I guess it would depend on your state's constitution. In Texas, the state constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms, but specifically states that the state legislature has 'the power to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime'.

So, in our case here in Texas, unfortunately, that would be a correct assessment. Carrying a concealed weapon is a privilege regulated by The State.


The US Constitution protects pre-existing rights from infringement by the Federal Government, one of those is the right to keep and bear arms, that protection has been extended to protection from infringement by the State Governments through incorporation.

The part of the TX Constitution that allows the legislature to regulate the wearing of guns is in my opinion an infringement of the US Constitution.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 1:37:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Reaper:

Certainly, this civilian had a Constitutional right to own a weapon. He had a state legislative-granted right,
not a Constitutional right, to conceal it on his person in public. And, he had a legislative-granted right to stand his
ground and use his weapon if he felt his life was in danger.




Here is how I would state the situation:

Zimmerman has a Constitutionally-protected right to own and bear a weapon. That rights is affirmed in Florida laws that uphold the legality of concealing a weapon while bearing it in public and using that weapon in self-defense when confronted with deadly force.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 2:00:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2012 2:00:22 AM EDT by UncleJerr]
i thought rights could only be explicitly protected by a government.

i can't imagine the arrogance a person must have to be able to say that they're granting another person a right. seems rather... totalitarian
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 2:41:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By UncleJerr:
i thought rights could only be explicitly protected by a government.

i can't imagine the arrogance a person must have to be able to say that they're granting another person a right. seems rather... totalitarian


I think that was the question, and point, I was trying to make.

Top Top