Let's Try This Again - State and the 2A

This is a discussion on Let's Try This Again - State and the 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So I think I did a bad job of conveying what I was trying to get across in the "Why Just the 2A" Thread. What ...

Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 174
Like Tree263Likes

Thread: Let's Try This Again - State and the 2A

  1. #1
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,049

    Let's Try This Again - State and the 2A

    So I think I did a bad job of conveying what I was trying to get across in the "Why Just the 2A" Thread.

    What I am getting at is this. If a state passed laws saying that people could only use free speech within their homes (like carrying without a permit in most states), or that freedom of religion required a permit that was "may issue" (I'm not talking about zoning laws, or 501c3 status), or certain websites were banned in a given state because they contained anti-government articles, do you think the average American would be OK with that?

    Why, then, is the average American OK with a state imposing magazine limits, or banning certain firearms, or requiring permits to own or purchase firearms?


    Disclaimer:

    I know that states have speech laws.

    I know that there are limits on all of the amendments.

    Think of NOT being legally allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater in the same way as not allowing mentally disturbed individuals to have firearms... I am trying to draw comparisons among EQUIVALENT things here... saying that you can't slander, so therefore states should be able to limit you to a single-shot shotgun that is registered, locked in a safe, and has 35 safeties is not equivalent.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    26,605
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    So I think I did a bad job of conveying what I was trying to get across in the "Why Just the 2A" Thread.

    What I am getting at is this. If a state passed laws saying that people could only use free speech within their homes (like carrying without a permit in most states), or that freedom of religion required a permit that was "may issue" (I'm not talking about zoning laws, or 501c3 status), or certain websites were banned in a given state because they contained anti-government articles, do you think the average American would be OK with that?

    Why, then, is the average American OK with a state imposing magazine limits, or banning certain firearms, or requiring permits to own or purchase firearms?
    Basically, 'cause firearms are "the Devil."

    And basically because all the rest are things most everyone does, most everyone has experience with, most everyone would be up in arms about when it impacted them directly. With firearms, however, altogether too many have no clue, no experience, no concern ... simply because it isn't they who are impacted.

    You're right, though. NONE of these infringements is constitutional. And the analogies when applied to other similar actions by citizens (such as speech, assembly, religion and all the rest) makes it patently clear to anyone caring of liberty, logic and truth. Imagine being afforded the right to a speedy jury trial by permission only, might-never-issue, and only with the weakest possible attorney that could be found, and only if one's attorney only spoke 30 words at a go, and only if you filed no more then 3 documents/week to the court in your own defense, ...

    And yet, THAT is exactly what altogether too many people are willing to accept is justified, in the case of arms.

    JMO.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #3
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,585
    Any decree by any .Gov (state OR Fed) that is in violation of the COTUS/BOR is NOT law- cannot be law - never was law to begin with . While I FULLY support the right of the States to Govern themselves (within the bounds clearly defined by the COTUS) that in no way means the states are not subject to the COTUS nor do they get " a pass" . All these feel good decrees do NOT make the state safer- they DO Infringe on pre-existing RIGHTS - which they have No authority do even attempt

    YMMV
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array OutWestSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    2,171
    It all comes down to what I have said many times on here, "Don't infringe MY rights", or "Not in my backyard". People for the most part do not care until it directly affects them. They spend their lives worry about important things like who is going to win the Oscar or who is the next person to get kicked off on Survivor. As long as they can't see how the law directly impacts their lives, they don't care.

    That is why I am happy to see my son's teacher doing an exercise where they do take away the kid's rights. Show them how important those rights really are.
    Badey, CIBMike, CWOUSCG and 3 others like this.

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array Aceoky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,585
    Don't get me wrong - I do think you are making a valid point-

    We have long stated that the 2nd makes it possible in keeping the rest intact - they Know this as well, so it makes sense in their "warped logic" to attack the 2nd more strongly - there is thus no consolidated effort to attack the rest as much (YET) they realize they first need to weaken the 2nd as much as possible.

    When a Gov fears the people there is freedom - when the people fear the Gov there is tyranny and they DO fear all of the USA armed citizens
    gatorbait51 and tdave like this.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Gibson v. Commonwealth, 237 Ky. 33, 34 S.W.2d 936 (1936), the High Court stated:  [I]t is the tradition that a Kentuckian never runs.   He does not have to.

  7. #6
    Senior Member Array CWOUSCG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    919
    You're preaching to the choir here, we agree with you that most of the state laws are not in the spirit of the 2A.

  8. #7
    Member Array Coconut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    375
    As long as you agree that there are limits on all the amendments, then it's only a matter of deciding which limitations are necessary and which ones aren't. Who gets to decide? Elected representatives and the court. Don't like the limit? Then vote for the right people.
    CWOUSCG, Hopyard and gatorbait51 like this.
    Ars longa vita brevis
    http://goo.gl/YN2P0h

  9. #8
    VIP Member Array ghost tracker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Ky Backwoods
    Posts
    4,718
    Most states developed or adapted their own legislative framework to best interface with the U.S. Constitution. Overall, that relatively seamless interface has worked well. If it hadn't, the Kentucky Militia would still be stationed at the Ohio River to prevent invasion from...Indiana. There remains, however, areas of law in which the states STILL HAVE the RIGHT for self-determination. That idea is currently on vacation. And considering the current tyranny spewing from D.C., I'm concerned that the concept of ANY self-determination has completely...retired!
    There are only TWO kinds of people in this world; those who describe the world as filled with two kinds of people...and those who don't.

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array CWOUSCG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    919
    [QUOTE=ghost tracker;3149086] the Kentucky Militia would still be stationed at the Ohio River to prevent invasion from...Indiana. QUOTE]
    Them dag-gummed Hoosiers better watch themselves.
    gatorbait51 likes this.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,946
    Actually websites are taken down because of what they say about government if it hits to close to home for them. Free speech as it was meant to be, ie without possible backlash from government state and fed is already curtailed to an extent. And the issue of RTKAB is only as strong as a states population and the fear of its government of the people it governs.

    In some states that fear does not exist at all as in CT. In others such as my own state the officials fear of being anti gun is palpable. Actually its easier to curtail speech and religion here than it is RTKAB. The FED's only job in this area is to strike down unconstitutional law made by the states. NOT ignore that duty and add unconstitutional laws of their own to mix.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array Ghost1958's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    5,946
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    Most states developed or adapted their own legislative framework to best interface with the U.S. Constitution. Overall, that relatively seamless interface has worked well. If it hadn't, the Kentucky Militia would still be stationed at the Ohio River to prevent invasion from...Indiana. There remains, however, areas of law in which the states STILL HAVE the RIGHT for self-determination. That idea is currently on vacation. And considering the current tyranny spewing from D.C., I'm concerned that the concept of ANY self-determination has completely...retired!
    You mean we can go home?? Dadburn slow pony express mail.
    " It is sad governments are chief'ed by the double tongues." quote Ten Bears Movie Outlaw Josie Wales

  13. #12
    Distinguished Member Array BurgerBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Western Kentucky
    Posts
    1,611
    Quote Originally Posted by ghost tracker View Post
    Most states developed or adapted their own legislative framework to best interface with the U.S. Constitution. Overall, that relatively seamless interface has worked well. If it hadn't, the Kentucky Militia - WILL - still be stationed at the Ohio River to prevent invasion from...Indiana. There remains, however, areas of law in which the states STILL HAVE the RIGHT for self-determination. That idea is currently on vacation. And considering the current tyranny spewing from D.C., I'm concerned that the concept of ANY self-determination has completely...retired!

    Yeah!!!! - Fixed it for you. Darn Yankees......

    Vietnam Veteran - 1966-1970 USASA
    Carry Pistol. Glock 23, .40 Cal.
    Carry Pistol. Glock 19, 9mm.
    Give me a minute before I post again.

  14. #13
    VIP Member Array Badey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    3,049
    Quote Originally Posted by Coconut View Post
    As long as you agree that there are limits on all the amendments, then it's only a matter of deciding which limitations are necessary and which ones aren't. Who gets to decide? Elected representatives and the court. Don't like the limit? Then vote for the right people.
    This is an extremely oversimplified view of things. Have you never heard of the tyranny of the majority? What if 49% of people support free speech, 51% agree to make it a felony to say, "the government is corrupt?" How does freedom of speech comport with that?

    Or, what if the majority of Pennsylvanians vote to make being a Christian a felony? Should I be penalized because someone else didn't "vote for the right people?"
    Though defensive violence will always be a sad necessity in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men -St. Augustine

  15. #14
    Member Array Coconut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    375
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    This is an extremely oversimplified view of things. Have you never heard of the tyranny of the majority? What if 49% of people support free speech, 51% agree to make it a felony to say, "the government is corrupt?" How does freedom of speech comport with that?

    Or, what if the majority of Pennsylvanians vote to make being a Christian a felony? Should I be penalized because someone else didn't "vote for the right people?"
    The BOR in essence sets out the norm. The 2A means RKBA is the norm rather than the exception, so limitations have to be relatively small and limited by time, place, and person. If all kinds of arms are banned to everybody, that would easily and certainly be ruled unconstitutional. The same thing applies to 1A. If all kinds of speech are banned, then it would be unconstitutional.

    I don't see how banning Christianity could ever be constitutional.

    On one extreme there's tyranny of the majority, on the other extreme there's anarchy brought by absolute interpretation of BOR. The vast majority of people supports common sense, which lies somewhere in between. Just because one doesn't subscribe to anarchy doesn't mean one automatically stands on the opposite extreme end and support tyranny of the majority. The world is not black and white.
    gatorbait51 likes this.
    Ars longa vita brevis
    http://goo.gl/YN2P0h

  16. #15
    Senior Member Array CWOUSCG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Left Coast
    Posts
    919
    Quote Originally Posted by Badey View Post
    This is an extremely oversimplified view of things. Have you never heard of the tyranny of the majority? What if 49% of people support free speech, 51% agree to make it a felony to say, "the government is corrupt?" How does freedom of speech comport with that?

    Or, what if the majority of Pennsylvanians vote to make being a Christian a felony? Should I be penalized because someone else didn't "vote for the right people?"
    I think you're oversimplifying things too. We need laws to make society work, without them we have anarchy.
    Our representative form of government with the 3 equal branches to provide checks and balances works pretty well all things considered.
    gatorbait51 likes this.

Page 1 of 12 1234511 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •