Bill would require all SD citizens to buy a gun

[M14 Shooter]

This reasoning continues to be flawed. There are a great many things that the federal government does do, which have been upheld as constitutional, that are not specifically enumerated as a power in the constitution. But the federal government is able to do them because they have a legitimate interest in the matter.

Yes... but these things deal with things like the implied powers of the executive - executive orders, for example - and the judiciary - judicial review. The issue here revolves around the powers of congress and the Elastic clause - a clause that, itself, states that there must be an underlying power granted by the constition for that power to be brought into use. The Elastic Clause doe snot expand the powers of Congress to whatever Congress believes is necessary and proper, but rather, grants Congress a means to exercise its previously allocated powers.

No state can restrict a person's liberties that are guaranteed by the federal constitution.

They can, if that restriction passes strict scrutiny.

If a requirement to buy a product and/or service suffices as a violation of some protected liberty under the constitution, then no state, county, or municipality can make such a requirement.

They can, if that requirement passes strict scrutiny.

It is not uncommon for states to require a person to buy permits in order to carry a handgun. States also may at times require a person to attend gun safety classes, at their own expense, in order to own such a permit. And while I don't actually know if it happens, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some state out there requires purchase of some kind of insurance or other service in order to own said permit.

Unless one is ready to claim that these measures are illegal, (which the courts have rejected anyway) then it is clear that a government of a given level does not infringe a person's protected liberties by requiring a person to buy a product.

Only if those requirements pass strict scrutiny.
None have.

Since there is no infringement of liberty, any level of government that has a legitimate interest in requiring the purchase a product can pass a law that reasonably serves that interest.

Only if it has been given the power to do so and that said requirements pass strict scrutiny.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you continue to bring up warrants when that doesn't address anything the other poster said??

It does, directly Her argument that the 2nd protects a collective right is based on the term "right of the people", with "people" denoting a collective rather than an individual.
If that argument is valid, then it applies wherever the term is used; necessarily, then, the rights protected by the 4th Amendment is collective as well.

This, you wll note, has not been effectively addressed.


Then...
If you are right, then there's no need for anyone to get a warrant to tap your phone, as according to your argument, the right of the people is collective, not individual


So....?
Even if you are right in that persons, individually, have the right to be secure in ther person, that protection does not apply, individually, to their papers and effect - so, you could argue that an arrest warrant is necessary, but not a search warrant.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?

And, of course, all --opinion-- to the contrary is moot as the SCotUS has directly addressed the people/persons issue in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

And then in DC v Heller

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

And, of course, the direct statement that the 2nd protects am individual right

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Feel free to show how these decisions are unsound.

I know about the ruling of the scotus and scalia's broad rewriting and misinterpretation on this issue but i disagree with it and maybe some day down the line when a less partisan and less right leaning activist court is in power this will be revisited and corrected.

Again:
Feel free to show how these decisions are unsound.

 

[M14 Shooter]

and, as i said:
This in no way supports the argument that the federal government has that power as well.

Your cite means nothing, you continue to fail.

stop altering my posts!!!!! Restored
.

Did you also happen to notice that he cotinues to claim that you are wrong even as he fails to show anything that supports that position??

On the contrary - I did describe how he is wrong.
He continues to fail to address this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You are wrong because I like Obama and guns are the devil.

Sadly, that's the best counter-argument in this topic so far...

Actually there have been several valid counter arguments, the problem is that you ignore anything that counters your own baseless opinions as you merely claim that what others have offered isn't relevent when it is.

I don't think so, Tim.
Feel free to give it a try.

 

[sparky]

thankfully, i'm more than compliant to visit the Dakota's.

maybe i'll mount a gun to the hood of my truck when i visit

yanno, just so there's no question of my citizenship....

~S~

 

[NYcarbineer]

Psssstt...
Before you embarass yourself further, read the story. The link is in the OP.

I'm not talking about the story I'm talking about what YOU believe.

Well in that case, you're simply self-sodomizing your credibility as a sentient being.
To wit:

Will you remind everyone that yes indeed you do think it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to deny a person convicted of a gun crime the right to own a gun?

I have never, ever said any such thing.

Do you want to deny that so I can pull up your post saying just that? Go ahead.

I -defy- you to do so.

Okay, here:

My post:

The other poster was saying that a criminal background check to see if you have convictions is unconstitutional, i.e., an 'infringement'.

Your response:

Yes. It is a form of prior restraint.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

In other words, you consider a background check for convictions to be an unconstitutional infringement, therefore you believe that it is unconstitutional to even check someone, let alone deny them the right to buy a gun.

Full context:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3220620-post38.html


Doubt me at your own peril.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If conservatives believed in states' rights as much as they claim, they'd want the 2nd amendment repealed and the matter left up to the states. Why should the federal government have the power to tell a state it has to let its citizens own guns, if the people of that state would prefer to decide that themselves?

 

[gekaap]

Yes... but these things deal with things like the implied powers of the executive - executive orders, for example - and the judiciary - judicial review. The issue here revolves around the powers of congress and the Elastic clause - a clause that, itself, states that there must be an underlying power granted by the constition for that power to be brought into use. The Elastic Clause doe snot expand the powers of Congress to whatever Congress believes is necessary and proper, but rather, grants Congress a means to exercise its previously allocated powers.

Actually, I'm talking about things like setting a minimum wage, raising and maintaining an Air Force, prohibitions against drug use, etc. These are all acts of Congress.

They can, if that restriction passes strict scrutiny.

No, they can't. No level of government can infringe upon the constitutionally protected liberties that the people enjoy. The constitution is the supreme law of the land. Constitutionally protected liberties are just that....liberties protected by the supreme law of the land.

Strict scrutiny is a form of judicial review. It is an approach that the judiciary uses, not to decide if infringing upon constitutional liberties is okay, but to determine whether such an infringement has occurred.

Only if those requirements pass strict scrutiny.
None have.

As noted above, passing strict scrutiny means that the judiciary has applied a vigorous approach to determine whether a given issue has violated the constitution. It does not mean that the court decides whether infringing on constitutional liberties okay this time around.

Only if it has been given the power to do so and that said requirements pass strict scrutiny.

*sighs* My entire post explains how such powers have been recognized to exist, so questioning whether they do is kinda a moot point.

 

[edthecynic]

Oh WOW. Where to begin?
1: Cite?
2: Not a -single- liberty is granted to a single person by the US constitution.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 49 L.Ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. 358

You do realize that that case actually proves your assertion that the federal government has the power to enforce vaccinations wrong, don't you?

This rationalization should be a winner. Let's have it!

What the Court decided was that that the freedom of the individual must sometimes be subordinated to the common welfare.

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S.

We come, then, to inquire whether any right given or secured by the Constitution is invaded by the statute as interpreted by the state court. The defendant insists that his liberty is invaded when the state subjects him to fine or imprisonment for neglecting or refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law is unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive, and, therefore, hostile to the inherent right of every freeman to care for his own body and health in such way as to him seems best; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination, no matter for what reason, is nothing short of an assault upon his person. But the liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis organized society could not exist with safety to its members. Society based on the rule that each one is a law unto himself would soon be confronted with disorder and anarchy. Real liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others. This court has more than once recognized it as a fundamental principle that 'persons and property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens in order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the state; of the perfect right of the legislature to do which no question ever was, or upon acknowledged general principles ever can be, made, so far as natural persons are concerned.' Hannibal & St. J. R. Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 471, 24 L. ed. 527, 530; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Haber, 169 U. S. 613, 628, 629, 42 L. ed. 878-883, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 488; Thorpe v. Rutland & B. R. Co. 27 Vt. 148, 62 Am. Dec. 625. In Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 89, 34 L. ed. 620, 621, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 13, we said: 'The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one's own will. It is only freedom from restraint under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same right by others. It is, then, liberty regulated by law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually, I'm talking about things like setting a minimum wage, raising and maintaining an Air Force, prohibitions against drug use, etc. These are all acts of Congress.

All of those have an associated power of congress.
Commerce, raise armies, commerce.
So, as I siad - these things deal with implied powers of the executive/judiciary.

They can, if that restriction passes strict scrutiny.

No, they can't. No level of government can infringe upon the constitutionally protected liberties that the people enjoy.

[/quote]
You said:

No state can restrict a person's liberties that are guaranteed by the federal constitution

This is absolutely untrue. -Any- liberty that is guaranteed bythe Constition CAN be RESTRICTED by the government if that restriction passes strict scrutiny.

Only if those requirements pass strict scrutiny.
None have.

As noted above, passing strict scrutiny means that the judiciary has applied a vigorous approach to determine whether a given issue has violated the constitution. It does not mean that the court decides whether infringing on constitutional liberties okay this time around.

This is funny.
If a restriction passes strict scrutiny, it is indeed deemed constitutionally "ok."
None of the restrictions you noted have passes strict scrutiny.

Only if it has been given the power to do so and that said requirements pass strict scrutiny.

*sighs* My entire post explains how such powers have been recognized to exist, so questioning whether they do is kinda a moot point.

[/QUOTE]On the contrary - the question of the existence of the power itself is the point, and yourpost does nothing to illustrate that they do exist.

 

[edthecynic]

I see that your education also did not include reading comprehension.
Either that or you're willfully ignorant. You choose.

Either way:
My statement stands - your citation is meaningless as it no way supports the argument that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations.

Take your arrogant condescension and shove it where it gets no light.

Awww.. whaddamadda puddy? Can't handle being wrong?
You should be used to it by now.
:shrug:

And my citation in no way says the federal government does not have the power as you falsely claim.

Either you can't read and therefore cannot understand what I wrote, or you do understand what I wrote and choose to misrepresent it. Either way, that's not what I posted.

Why don't you actually read what I wrote, try -very- hard to comprehend it - it is, after all, in plain English and you therefore might find doing so to a substantial challenge - and then return with an effective response:

My statement stands - your citation is meaningless as it no way supports the argument that the federal government has the power to require vaccinations.

In my citation the question was whether the defendant's US Constitutional rights were violated by being compelled to get vaccinated and the decision was that they weren't. That's it, compelled vaccinations do not violate the US Constitution because they support the common good. It said nothing about who does the compelling or that the common good is limited to states only, so how you can say only the state can do the compelling is beyond me.

 

[gekaap]

All of those have an associated power of congress.
Commerce, raise armies, commerce.
So, as I siad - these things deal with implied powers of the executive/judiciary.

Associating a minimum wage with the commerce clause is an extremely weak argument. Associating drug use to commerce is impossible.
Associating the Air Force with the Army pretty much fails, because the constitution is explicit about the Army and the Navy, and mentions them distinctly. Such enumeration of forces would demand that a hyper restrictive interpretation of the constitution would render raising and maintaining an Air Force to be unconstitutional because our Air Force is a separate branch of service.

This is funny.
If a restriction passes strict scrutiny, it is indeed deemed constitutionally "ok."
None of the restrictions you noted have passes strict scrutiny.

You're putting the cart before the horse. An issue is not screened through strict scrutiny to decide whether it's an acceptable infringement of constitutionally protected liberties. A law is put through strict scrutiny to determine if it commits infringement.

I don't understand what "restrictions" you think I have noted.

On the contrary - the question of the existence of the power itself is the point, and your post does nothing to illustrate that they do exist.

Government has the power to pass laws as necessary and proper to fulfill a legitimate government interest. Inasmuch as uninsured people cause damage to the general public when they obtain emergency health care for which they cannot and subsequently do not pay, and inasmuch as requirement to buy insurance does not violate a constitutionally protected liberty, the government has a legitimate case to require people to purchase health insurance.

Furthermore, any insistence that any part of this analysis were defective in establishing constitutional validity of the issue would require that other well established public policies and government actions be equally defective of their constitutional validity.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In my citation the question was whether the defendant's US Constitutional rights were violated by being compelled to get vaccinated and the decision was that they weren't. That's it, compelled vaccinations do not violate the US Constitution because they support the common good. It said nothing about who does the compelling or that the common good is limited to states only, so how you can say only the state can do the compelling is beyond me.

What you fail to understand is deciding an action by a state does not violate someone's rights s not the same as saying that the federal government has the power to engage in that same act.

Your argument to that effect is a non sequitur.

 

[Chris]

If the Republicans had their way, everyone would have guns, and no one would have healthcare.

Why don't they just run a Glock 9mm with a flag pin attached for president?

 

[M14 Shooter]

In other words, you consider a background check for convictions to be an unconstitutional infringement, therefore you believe that it is unconstitutional to even check someone, let alone deny them the right to buy a gun.

Awww, skippy....
You're confusing two seperate things.

Background checks? Unconstitutional. Said that a zillion times.
The prohibition against felons owning guns? Constitutional. Never have I said otherwise.

Arguing against the consitutionality of background checks in no way equates to an argument against the constitutionality of the prohibiliton against felons owning guns.

Seperate issues, sport.

Doubt me at your own peril.

I laugh at you. Ha.

 

[grunt11b]

Nothing presumptuous about my position at all, laws do not keep you safe.

In the most restrictive sense, nothing keeps you safe. But your insinuation that various traffic laws make roads unsafe is unfounded, and your reasoning of relying on the statistics of a single state while ignoring any question of causal factors for those statistics is nothing more than a presumption, and a flawed one at that.

You completely missed the entire point, if the states require the citizens to own guns "Which the liberals hate", then the liberal gubment would tell the states that that law is unconstitutional right?. But if that is that case, then the same holds true for the healthcare law, if citizens cannot be held by law to buy a gun, then they cannot be held by law to buy health insurance. Get with the program dude.

 

[Chris]

Nothing presumptuous about my position at all, laws do not keep you safe.

In the most restrictive sense, nothing keeps you safe. But your insinuation that various traffic laws make roads unsafe is unfounded, and your reasoning of relying on the statistics of a single state while ignoring any question of causal factors for those statistics is nothing more than a presumption, and a flawed one at that.

You completely missed the entire point, if the states require the citizens to own guns "Which the liberals hate", then the liberal gubment would tell the states that that law is unconstitutional right?. But if that is that case, then the same holds true for the healthcare law, if citizens cannot be held by law to buy a gun, then they cannot be held by law to buy health insurance. Get with the program dude.

Of course they can.

The government requires car insurance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I think a lot of people here are comparing this bill to Obamacare erroneously, although IMO both are unconstititional. However, they are unconstitutional for different reasons, again IMO.

This bill is an obvious 2nd Amendment violation and is therefore unconstitutional. Case closed.

So far, I've not heard much opposition to Obamacare suggesting that it's a violation of the Bill of Rights to mandate the purchase of insurance. If that were the case, many similar mandates at the state level would also be a violation. The unconstitutionality of Obamacare would stem from the fact that the federal government is overstepping the authority granted to it by the Constitution. That is different than saying it's a BoR violation. And if the USSC court rules against Obamacare on this basis, it wouldn't mean that similar mandates at the state level are also unconstitutional.

How does this violate the 2nd Amendment? Especially when you factor in SCOTUS decisions that have upheld the right of the federal government to mandate gun ownership?

The only such precedent I'm aware of is Kennesaw GA, but since any resident can simply declare himself exempt it's hardly any precedent at all. If you can provide a precedent whereby a private citizen was penalized in any way for refusing to own a gun, and such a penalty was upheld by the USSC, I will reconsider my position.

Maybe you should do some basic research.

The Militia Act of 1792

 

[Charles_Main]

In the most restrictive sense, nothing keeps you safe. But your insinuation that various traffic laws make roads unsafe is unfounded, and your reasoning of relying on the statistics of a single state while ignoring any question of causal factors for those statistics is nothing more than a presumption, and a flawed one at that.

You completely missed the entire point, if the states require the citizens to own guns "Which the liberals hate", then the liberal gubment would tell the states that that law is unconstitutional right?. But if that is that case, then the same holds true for the healthcare law, if citizens cannot be held by law to buy a gun, then they cannot be held by law to buy health insurance. Get with the program dude.

Of course they can.

The government requires car insurance.

Not the Federal Government. But then you lefties seem to forget that we are a federal Republic with a division of Power between the Fed and the Many States.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nothing presumptuous about my position at all, laws do not keep you safe.

In the most restrictive sense, nothing keeps you safe. But your insinuation that various traffic laws make roads unsafe is unfounded, and your reasoning of relying on the statistics of a single state while ignoring any question of causal factors for those statistics is nothing more than a presumption, and a flawed one at that.

Why don't you learn to read? I did not say traffic laws make us unsafe. What I am doing is mocking the claim by the Governor's Association that the fact that roads are safe without those laws is wrong.