Guns and states' rights

[jpak]

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-guns-20111118,0,3952941.story

States' rights is one of those high principles that Republicans are willing to fight for — except when they aren't. So we have to give credit to Rep. Dan Lungren, California's former attorney general and now a congressman from Gold River, because he was the sole GOP member of the House Judiciary Committee to live up to his party's constitutional ideals by voting against a recent bill that steps on state gun regulations.

The bill, known as the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act, was approved in the House on Wednesday by a 272-154 vote, with 43 Democrats siding with 229 Republicans in the "yes" column. If it ever became law — which isn't likely because the Senate isn't expected to take it up — it would render moot California's efforts to protect citizens from those carrying concealed firearms. This state sets a high hurdle for people seeking permits to carry hidden guns in public, requiring them to show good cause for why they need a permit, undergo background checks and complete an intensive safety course. Yet under the House bill, those with permits from any state (including Utah, where anyone who passes a quick gun-familiarity course and a criminal check can get a permit and even out-of-state residents are eligible), can carry guns in any other state. The sole exception is Illinois, the only state that doesn't issue concealed-weapons permits and thus doesn't have to accept permits issued elsewhere.

The bill is largely a symbolic gesture aimed at shoring up support from the GOP base during an election campaign and ensuring that lawmakers have the blessing of the powerful National Rifle Assn., but it still took courage for Lungren, who generally supports gun rights, to take a stand against it. "As a former attorney general, I continue to have a deep and abiding commitment to preserving states' rights," he said. It's a principled stance, because unlike most other civil rights issues, there is a strong justification for letting different regions set their own gun-control policies.

<more>

GOP/NRA douchebaggery has its limits

yup

[baldguy]

1. You're wrong: GOP/NRA douchebaggery has no limits at all.

Thankfully, the majority of people can't be fooled all the time.

[iverglas]

7. actually there are Republicans I would expect to oppose this bill

and I would expect they did. Anybody got the vote breakdown? I can't find it ...

Michael Castle, for example?

http://www.opencongress.org/people/voting_history/400070_Michael_Castle/2

Michael Castle
Republican • 9 Terms • Sworn In 1993

Most often votes with:
Rep. Frederick Upton <R>
Walter Minnick <D>

Least often votes with:
Rep. Ronald Paul <R>
Rep. Barbara Lee <D>

Seems to shun the left and the far right and side with the middle.

Oh, here we are, right at that site:

http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2011/h/842

Ayes: 271 (Democrat: 35; Republican: 236)
Nays: 153 (Democrat: 153; Republican: 0)
Abstained: 9 (Democrat: 4; Republican: 5)

So no Rs did vote against, hm.

Michelle Bachmann abstained (off on important business?); that won't stand her in good stead surely!

Where's Mike Castle in that list? The right wing actually hates him; the NRA certainly does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc&noredirect=1

Pretty funny ... if not intentionally.

Oh duh! I wasn't paying attention, was I? He got beat when he tried for the Republican nomination for Senate last time, I remember that now. Beat by, as a commenter on the article below put it, "by far the dumbest person in politics".

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-primaries/118119-nra-backs-odonnell-in-delaware

NRA backs Tea Party candidate in Delaware
By Shane D'Aprile - 09/10/10 02:51 PM ET

The National Rifle Association endorsed conservative commentator Christine O'Donnell Friday in Delaware's Republican Senate primary. The Tea Party-backed O'Donnell is looking to upset Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.) on Tuesday.

... The NRA's endorsement made no mention of Castle, but the longtime congressman earns an "F" from the gun lobby for his voting record.

Christine O'Donnell, great big snork. No depths they won't stoop to. Maybe our friends are right after all: all it does care about is guns. Well, you've got the NRA to thank for having a Democratic senator in the seat now I guess. Has everybody sent them thank-you flowers?

http://www.issues2000.org/senate/Chris_Coons.htm

Respect 2nd Amendment with common sense limitations. (Sep 2010)
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Aug 2010)

:rofl:

[Philosopher King]

2. Funny...I had always thought that individuals had rights...

and that states had powers.

As far as this legislation goes, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. States do not have the power to prohibit the 1st Amendment rights of individuals, nor do they have the power to prohibit the 2nd (3rd, 4th, etc.) Amendment rights of individuals.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Clause 1 - Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

[geckosfeet]

4. 2nd and the states

As far as this legislation goes, the 2nd Amendment is an individual right guaranteed by the Constitution. States do not have the power to prohibit the 1st Amendment rights of individuals, nor do they have the power to prohibit the 2nd (3rd, 4th, etc.) Amendment rights of individuals.

So when my state restricts my rights by limiting choice of guns (essentially banning certain guns based on their features) and other states restrict my right to carry, I can challenge in court based on 2nd amendment rights - assuming that I have unlimited funds to keep feeding lawyers.

[Philosopher King]

10. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right not unlimited.

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, states may prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and/or those with psychological disorders. Likewise, they may prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

To your point: the prohibition of certain guns based on their features is not as clearly defined. Bans on handguns, as well as trigger lock and disassembly requirements fail to meet constitutional muster. It is also a common misconception that machine guns, noise suppressors, sawed-off shotguns, and short barreled rifles are prohibited. This is entirely untrue; however, the ATF does regulate their possession my means of licensing requirements and taxes.

However, many of the specifics regarding firearms and their features have yet to be defined. That is why it is important to support institutions that advocate for and challenge governments when they seek to prohibit the People’s 2nd Amendment rights.

[iverglas]

18. and you pulled these "may prohibit"s

For example, states may prohibit the possession of firearms by felons and/or those with psychological disorders. Likewise, they may prohibit the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.

... out of your Constitution, did you?

Or maybe just somewhere less exalted.

[Hoopla Phil]

20. Don't know what Iverglas posted but your response was very well

stated and written. Thank you for such a great post.

[iverglas]

23. somebody needs to tell "hoplophile" to read the rules of this website

[Philosopher King]

26. Thanks for the kind words...

Unfortunately, the referenced individual appears unable to read, listen, comprehend and think for himself. Rather, he seems inclined to read, and/or listen to the words of others and if he finds that they correspond with his opinions and beliefs, he accepts them as the infallible truth.

Regrettably, too many of our fellow citizens fail to use of their brains.

[iverglas]

27. hahahahahaha

Snork.

[iverglas]

28. but allow me to elaborate

Unfortunately, the referenced individual appears unable to read, listen, comprehend and think for himself. Rather, he seems inclined to read, and/or listen to the words of others and if he finds that they correspond with his opinions and beliefs, he accepts them as the infallible truth.

... leaving aside the obvious ignorant clanger ...

I find it eternally amusing to have children attempt to condescend to me.

I wouldn't dignify anything you posted by even calling it "opinions and beliefs". As I've demonstrated very completely, it's burble, and it happens to be burble often found in very particular sources, and parroted by those sources poorly educated acolytes.

[iverglas]

24. crickets?

[iverglas]

8. too bad, you were wrong

Funny...I had always thought that individuals had rights...
and that states had powers.

But you get points for memorizing the lines!


In arrangements between/among collective entities -- nations, states, provinces ... -- by treaty, constitution, etc., each party to the arrangement acquires rights as against the other(s), that may be exercised/enforced against the other(s), sometimes as provided in the arrangement (e.g. in the International Court of Justice or at international trade tribunals, in the case of treaties; in the domestic courts, in the case of constitutions).

The division of powers in the constitution of a federal state gives the federated entities (states, provinces ...) rights as against the central government.

Feel free to look it up.

[Philosopher King]

11. The examples you presented regarding international entities have no bearing whatsoever

on the individual rights of People residing in the US—not just citizens, but Individual Persons. Other sovereign nations may establish state's rights, animal rights, or whatever rights, but the Constitution trumps other country's as well as international laws.

Moreover, there is no need to "look it up," for the Declaration of Independence establishes the principle that individuals are endowed...with certain unalienable Rights and that Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Most states’ "rights" supporters invoke the 10th Amendment to legitimize and validate their beliefs that states have rights. However, the 10th Amendment has very specific wording:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.

Thus, the 10th Amendment delegates powers, that allow the states to govern themselves in many areas. But there are conditions regarding the delegation of powers to the states: First, is that they are not already vested to the federal government by the Constitution, and secondly, that they are not reserved by the People for themselves.

The 9th Amendment also has very specific and noticeably distinct wording:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.

Not only are the powers of the states qualified by the consent of the People, but the Constitution also affirms that the rights of the People, even those not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, may not be prohibited or infringed on, by governments.

Finally, the incorporation clause of the 14th Amendment affirms that all rights protected by the federal Constitution may not be infringed upon by the states. This means that no government within the United States has the power to prohibit the rights bequeathed to Individuals by Nature.

[iverglas]

12. yada yada blah blah blah

The examples you presented regarding international entities have no bearing whatsoever
Posted by Philosopher King
on the individual rights of People residing in the US—not just citizens, but Individual Persons.

What a strange fondness for capital letters you have ...

Constitutions of federal states divide powers between levels of government.

Each level of government may legislate to regulate the exercises of various rights by individuals in relation to matters under the jurisdiction of that level of government.

Are you following so far?

When a level of government legislates in relation to something that is within its constitutionally assigned powers, its legislation will not be invalid unless it is contrary to some overriding provision of the constitution relating to individual rights that applies to the level of government in question.

The way to determine whether legislation is intra vires or ultra vires a particular government -- within its powers or not within its powers -- is to seek a decision of the courts assigned by the constitution to make that determination.

The same is true for determining whether legislation violates some constitutional provision regarding individual rights.

The two issues are separate. The two issues are not the same.

Each level of government in a federation or confederation has the RIGHT, as against the other level(s) of government, to legislate within its constitutionally-assigned fields of jurisdiction.

Anybody who thinks that a level of government has overstepped its authority in either regard is entirely free to challenge the legislation in issue in the courts.

No one has done that with respect to any of the state legislation regarding the carrying of weapons that this legislation purports to supercede. Why? Because everybody behind this snow job is a coward, I'd say. And/or because they know to a certainty that they would lose.

Going to a higher level of government to overrule legislation enacted by another level of government that had clear constitutional authority to enact that legislation, well, it just does not work that way. You don't get Congress to enact legislation to override Michigan's drinking age. You challenge that legislation if you think it is an unconstitutional exercise of jurisdiction because it infringes individual rights in the Constitution. Or you challenge it if you think it trenches on a field of jurisdiction assigned to another level of government. You don't pretend that another level of government can just oust the jurisdiction of the government that legislated by passing legislation to purportedly override it.

But I'm repeating myself, and I will be met only by the usual rote babble in return, so I'll just leave it to you to either figure out (or acknowledge you already knew), or not. Whatever.

But allow me to quote Clyde Roard Hoey, "conservative Democrat" from North Carolina and governor of that state 1937-1941 (not my favourite source of opinion, I simply offer this to show that you are talking nonsense and I am not).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_R._Hoey

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ewr4hLVBk8AC&pg=PA623&lpg=PA623&dq=%22oust+the+jurisdiction+of+the+state%22+-court+-courts&source=bl&ots=xU4b8hD1FB&sig=rC0tt2AcADbus5bde0N3TG0_F9I&hl=en&ei=8-fGTtO5NMGs2gXA_cndDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22oust%20the%20jurisdiction%20of%20the%20state%22%20-court%20-courts&f=false

(It's a google books result; if that doesn't work, google clyde hoey "oust the jurisdiction of the state". My transcription, with my emphasis.)

May 27, 1939.

Honorable Harry McMullan,
Attorney General of North Carolina,
Raleigh, N.C.

My dear Mr. McMullan:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by statute, I request you to intervene on behalf of the state of North Carolina in the litigation now pending between the City of High Point and Yadkin County, for the purpose of asserting the right of North Carolina to control the Yadkin River and to challenge the authority of the Federal Power Commission to exercise any control over this river.

... If the Commission can control the Yadkin then it can take charge of practically every stream of any consequence in the State and require all the developments on these rivers to get license from and pay fees to the Federal Government and completely oust the jurisdiction of the State to all practical purposes.

... The State of North Carolina does not wish to take sides in any of these lawsuits as between two units of government, but enters solely to protect its own sovereignty, and shall confine its interest to the assertion of those rights.

... I am unwilling to sit idly by and fail to do everything possible to protect the State from this attempted invasion of its sovereignty by this Federal agency.

Yours very truly,
Clyde R. Hoey, Governor.

[Philosopher King]

13. I once saw a politician in front of a camera say something to the effect that the federal government

"did not have the right to tell (me) what kind of light bulbs I can buy.” He was a Republican; thus, he had an excuse for not understand the Constitution from a legal perspective. Likewise, Mr. Hoey’s letter to Judge McMullan simply demonstrates that the line of constitutionally challenged politicians is growing longer with each passing day.

The key point is that one’s ignorance of the concept of the separation of powers and the enumeration of rights, does not effect a rewriting the Constitution. When it was established 224 years ago, the Constitution did not define the rights of governments; nor does it today.
For the words of ignorant politicians do not establish law, nor do your beliefs.

I cited clauses that confirm the veracity of my words; conversely, you will never be able to place your finger on the Constitutional clause the defines and/or establishes the rights of governments.

[iverglas]

17. yada yada yada blah blah

About what I expected.

[Philosopher King]

19. Indeed...

Checkmate.

[iverglas]

22. perhaps I wasn't clear enough for you

What I expected was a bunch more pompous over-capitalized burble from someone who hasn't a clue what he's talking about. And that's what we got.

If the central government of the US enacted legislation setting a nation-wide minimum drinking age, let's say 25, and instructed its agents to enforce that legislation in the various states, what might the state of Michigan do in response?

I say it would bring the matter before the courts, whether directly or as an intervener in, say, an appeal by someone convicted under the legislation, and assert ... hm, what would it assert ... I'm thinking it would assert its right as against the central government to legislate the minimum drinking age within its boundaries ...

Yeah, that's it.

But then you may have some other theory you'd like to blow at us hard.

[Philosopher King]

25. Alcohol...? Okay, why do you think it was necessary to amend the Constitution to prohibit alcohol?

Inasmuch as it is unlikely that you are willing to use your brain and apply the logic required to deduce and respond correctly, let me help you.

Prior to the enactment of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution, "the central government of the US" did not have the power to prohibit alcohol. As I mentioned earlier, governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. Thus, upon ratification of the 21st, the People (the governed) delegated power to the federal government, which resulted in the prohibition of alcohol in the US.

Rather than assuming that politicians know what they are talking about and speak the truth, I urge you to think for yourself. That why Nature endowed you with a brain.

[iverglas]

29. man, that's just sad

I wander off, shaking my head at the pathetic sadness of it.

The fact that you think this had anything to do with the subject matter ...

Rather than assuming that politicians know what they are talking about and speak the truth, I urge you to think for yourself. That why Nature endowed you with a brain.

And I urge you, you obnoxious jumped-up little prat, to show some respect for your betters. Or at least restrain your mouth lest the world take you for a fool.

[jmg257]

3. Isn't there a recent post here about the Senate considering a federal bill that

would limit state rights/powers by forcing states to comply with more federal gun control?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x480440

Bill S436, actually penalizes states (and colleges) that don't comply with federal regulations.
"SEC. 101. PENALTIES FOR STATES THAT DO NOT..."
‘SEC. 124. MENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT PLAN FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION..."


"As a former attorney general, I continue to have a deep and abiding commitment to preserving states' rights," he said. It's a principled stance, because unlike most other civil rights issues, there is a strong justification for letting different regions set their own gun-control policies."


Now I am confused - do we want federal interference in state powers, or not?

:shrug:

[geckosfeet]

5. The states interfered with the constitution first. This seems to be tit for tat legislation.

As mentioned in the op - the senate does not have plans to take this up.

[iverglas]

30. there is no correlation between the tit and the tat

If there was any "interference with the Constitution" by the states (you actually appear to mean violation of the Constitution), that is a matter between the states and the people of those states; the alleged "interference" is with an alleged individual right under the Constitution, and people in one of those states may seek redress for the violation, and seek to have it struck down, in the courts.

The bill passed by the House is a genuine interference -- an interference by the central government in an area that is within the jurisdiction of the states, under the Constitution.

The two are not related in any way.

[RC]

6. I wonder what the Kansas City MO police thing about National a Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act?

http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/homicides_kansas_city/

What is unusual is an evening news program that does not open with a shooting.
Yeah, let's make it easier for more people to have more guns.


Police identify barber shot to death on Troost
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/18/3272994/police-identify-barber-shot-to.html

Early morning shooting leaves one dead, two others injured
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/11/18/3272969/early-morning-shooting-leaves.html

1260 results for "shooting"
http://www.kansascity.com/search_results/?q=shooting

[jmg257]

9. Likely they are against it. They have that right, anyone else can screw themselves. nt

[PavePusher]

14. Were any of the shootings done by legal gun owners/carriers?

If not, it means squat.

And squat makes better fertilizer.

[PavePusher]

15. P.S. In the U.S, the police do not get to decide what your Civil Rights are.

Just sayin'...

[gejohnston]

16. this has what to do with National a Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act?

Nothing. Armed robbery, gangland business disputes, but not CCW holders shooting each other over parking spaces or noon time duels (that only happened in Gary Cooper movies).

[aikoaiko]

21. We know what you think of the GOP and NRA who supported this. How about the Democrats?

Care to go on record?

:rofl: