|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,498
Posts545,442
Members14,414
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 227
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 227 |
Does a state law effect our 2nd Amendment rights ?
The 14th amendment clearly addresses this issue. States in the antebellum south tried to use the excuse that the Constitution was only a restriction on the federal government and that the states could place restrictions on rights. It was merely a cover for the south to exclude blacks and deny them their rights. The excuse that you might hear today from local governments to violate or deny peoples rights is "home rule" or "local control". The 14th amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." We can for now only hope the above statement that the 14th amendment contains all the answers to the issue of a state or local government's right to regulate firearms ownership. However correct the assertion above may be, the reality is far different for now. Many localities limit firearms ownership and my home state of Illinois further regulates the ownership through the "firearms owner identification card" and the municipality I live in has ordinances against owning high capacity magazines and assault style weapons. All the Constitutional theory in the world isn't worth a "tinker's" in the face of the fact that state and local governments do regulate and restrict the types of firearms citizens can own and do so notwithstanding the 14th amendment. That is not to say that such regulation is Constitutional, but as other very astute posters have pointed out, until these laws are challenged and we have a Supreme Court ruling on these issues, many of us are regulated by our state and local governments and we either comply (as do I) or we run the risk of prosecution. Unlike the condition of slavery, gun ownership isn't nearly such a popular issue with the general public as was the full realization of the emancipation of the ex-slaves in the ante-bellum years. Doug
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155 |
...even the anti-gunners on this site... If our antis think... Interesting. Are there any anti-gunners on this site, on this forum or on this thread?  I hadn't noticed.  Care to elucidate?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250 |
We all do what we can!
You vote for the party who'll keep your guns in play.
If you've voted in an Oprah like harpie to Washington this last election - I hope they get you first!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
A frame or receiver that is identical to, or based substantially on the frame or receiver of, a firearm described in any of subparagraphs (A) through (I) or (L).
Anyone care to gloss above from HR 1022, Section 3, subparagraph J? If that means what it appears to mean in terms of items not elsewhere enumberated, Zumbo wasn't that far ahead of the curve and should be able to find a job in New York if not necessarily in Ilion. jack
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 986
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 986 |
Does a state law effect our 2nd Amendment rights ?
The 14th amendment clearly addresses this issue. States in the antebellum south tried to use the excuse that the Constitution was only a restriction on the federal government and that the states could place restrictions on rights. It was merely a cover for the south to exclude blacks and deny them their rights. The excuse that you might hear today from local governments to violate or deny peoples rights is "home rule" or "local control". The 14th amendment states "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." We can for now only hope the above statement that the 14th amendment contains all the answers to the issue of a state or local government's right to regulate firearms ownership. However correct the assertion above may be, the reality is far different for now. Many localities limit firearms ownership and my home state of Illinois further regulates the ownership through the "firearms owner identification card" and the municipality I live in has ordinances against owning high capacity magazines and assault style weapons. All the Constitutional theory in the world isn't worth a "tinker's" in the face of the fact that state and local governments do regulate and restrict the types of firearms citizens can own and do so notwithstanding the 14th amendment. That is not to say that such regulation is Constitutional, but as other very astute posters have pointed out, until these laws are challenged and we have a Supreme Court ruling on these issues, many of us are regulated by our state and local governments and we either comply (as do I) or we run the risk of prosecution. Unlike the condition of slavery, gun ownership isn't nearly such a popular issue with the general public as was the full realization of the emancipation of the ex-slaves in the ante-bellum years. Doug Doug you are correct in what you have pointed out, that state and local governments are ignoring the 14th amendment. There is no legal precednet for this construction of 2nd amendment rights being violated under the 14th amendment by state and local governments at present since no one has made that challenge that I am aware of. However, like the 2nd amendment itself, there are countless transcripts of the debates over ratification of the 14th amendment in which the violations of the right to keep and bear arms in the antebellum south were a major issue in passing and ratifying the amendment to stop these infringements. During the debates in Congress some former slaves were brought in to testify before Congress about the restrictions and confiscation of firearms in the antebellum south.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,812 |
"The anticipated results of successful passage and signing into law of House Resolution #1022 are contrary to the intent of the Founding Fathers as regards the private ownership of firearms, will place in abeyance the quotidian pursuit of familiarity and proficiency with firearms as expressed in the customary support of the Civilian Marksmanship Program by our Federal Government, and will produce a damping effect on our domestic firearms industry and the de facto reduction of hunting and target-shooting activities without producing the desirable end of reducing violent crime. I request that you review this proposed legislation carefully in the hope that less draconian methods may be found to combat firearms crime. Thank you."
Sent this to my congressmen today. Our discussion of Zumbo really put me off rationalizing away your interests and mine in the bargain.
jack
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
I sure like the way you write....and you never once called them demi-rats.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,129 Likes: 198
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 14,129 Likes: 198 |
My friend King, in his post, seems to assume that fear and a positive attitude toward deprivation of freedoms to protect against perceived terrorist activities are rampant in our country, especially among conservative thinkers and voters. I don't think this is neccesarily true. However, in my opinion, the basic conservative thinking is that liberal thinkers are all too willing to respect and protect governments and religions who not only would, but do, deprive their citizens and opponents of both freedoms and life as a normal course of business. Conservative thinkers in the U.S. have a real problem with this thought process and, frankly, do not understand it. A citizenry has to take some action to protect its welfare, sometimes at the expense of a "warm and fuzzy" relationship with those who would bury them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 659
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 659 |
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Ben Franklin
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."
Clarence Darrow
"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered."
Dorothy Thompson
"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you."
Ramsey Clark
"We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home."
Edward R. Murrow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,155 |
"A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you."
Ramsey Clark
Never thought I'd see anyone cite Ramsey Clark in defense of the Second Amendment! "If government is incapable of keeping guns from the potential criminal while permitting them to the law-abiding citizen, then government is inadequate to the times. The only alternative is to remove guns from the American scene."
Ramsey Clark, Crime in America, 1970 As Attorney General under Lyndon Johnson, Ramsey Clark restructured federal prisons to stress the importance of rehabilitation and early release. He oversaw the first federal gun-control law to be enacted in over thirty years - the 1968 Gun Control Act. Ramsey Clark subsequently acted as counsel for North Vietnamese Communists and Iran’s Islamic dictatorship, and more recently volunteered to act as defense counsel for Saddam Hussein. 
|
|
|
|
|
