Supreme Court: 2nd amendment applies to states as well

[daveman]

It's referred to as being "hoist on your own petard".

In common vernacular nowadays, "You (the "liberals") blew yourself up with your own bomb."

Sucks, huh?

You do realize, don't you, that the Second takes precedence over the 10th, right?

No, doesn't look like you do. Well, guess what? Today's decision says it does.

ah, daveman, the secret statist, once again fulfills the meaning of my signature line.

Can you show me in the Constitution where it says an enumerated right can be left to the states to regulate?

I'll wait here.

On second thought, no, I won't. I don't have time to wait for something that doesn't exist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You argument is false, statist daveman. Move on.

 

[daveman]

I agree wholeheartedly tha the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own and bear arms.

I also happen to believe as a solid centrist that SCOTUS use of incorporation is absolutely correct in extending the protection to the states. I also know that it is a statist procedure.

Anybody who argues that it is not statist is ignorant, mentally feeble, or malignant.

As a solid centrist (pfft! -- right), you're woefully ignorant of the Constitution. It's been shown to you repeatedly that rights specifically enumerated cannot be left to the states.

Incorporation is a fact, and your argument against it is unfactual. So you believe in incorporation, thus my libertarian fraud, you are a statist. Next.

Read it. Know it. Live it.

And quit making up shit about it.

 

[daveman]

You argument is false, statist daveman. Move on.

Can't prove your case? Note: You stamping your feet impotently is not proof.

 

[Tech_Esq]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

It's referred to as being "hoist on your own petard".

In common vernacular nowadays, "You (the "liberals") blew yourself up with your own bomb."

Sucks, huh?

You do realize, don't you, that the Second takes precedence over the 10th, right?

No, doesn't look like you do. Well, guess what? Today's decision says it does.

Did you really mean to quote me with that response?

If so, I'd be interested in hearing your formulation of Constitutional interpretation where one part of the Constitution "takes precedence" over another part.

Now, there is a particular reason why you happen to be right in this instance, not that it's applicable to the discussion at all, but you get bonus points if you can cite the case.

 

[JakeStarkey]

As a solid centrist (pfft! -- right), you're woefully ignorant of the Constitution. It's been shown to you repeatedly that rights specifically enumerated cannot be left to the states.

Incorporation is a fact, and your argument against it is unfactual. So you believe in incorporation, thus my libertarian fraud, you are a statist. Next.

Read it. Know it. Live it.

And quit making up shit about it.

You know nothing of what you write. I made you look like a fool yesterday with your silliness. I will do it again here if you persist.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I agree wholeheartedly tha the 2nd Amendment protects our right to own and bear arms.

I also happen to believe as a solid centrist that SCOTUS use of incorporation is absolutely correct in extending the protection to the states. I also know that it is a statist procedure.

Anybody who argues that it is not statist is ignorant, mentally feeble, or malignant.

It's occurred to me that you don't actually know what a statist is. You keep bandying it around, but it really is just another barb to you. You might as well say motherfucker. From you, it means the same thing.

 

[CMike]

He doesn't look like a fool. He is spot on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

Another idiot that ignores the Constitution.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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 to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

That is the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United Sates. It quite clearly states that all rights guaranteed in the Constitution cannot be restricted by the sates.

Another point, taking power away from a state is not statist.

Yup, I find it interesting you arguing as a liberal for this point. Yes, it is statist, and now you are a collectivist. Do you agree that the court had the right to impose Roe on the states.

Roe is irrelevant to this conversation, it is about the 14th amendment. How is taking away the right of the state to restrict a persons rights statist? Explain that to me very slowly, because I am obviously to stupid to even begin to see the connection.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Another idiot that ignores the Constitution.


That is the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United Sates. It quite clearly states that all rights guaranteed in the Constitution cannot be restricted by the sates.

Another point, taking power away from a state is not statist.

Yup, I find it interesting you arguing as a liberal for this point. Yes, it is statist, and now you are a collectivist. Do you agree that the court had the right to impose Roe on the states.

Roe is irrelevant to this conversation, it is about the 14th amendment. How is taking away the right of the state to restrict a persons rights statist? Explain that to me very slowly, because I am obviously to stupid to even begin to see the connection.

When you see Jake write "statist" just replace it with motherfucker. He has no idea what the meaning of statist is, he's just trying, in vain, to make the right out to be hypocrites without understanding the concept. He's using a scattergun approach to see if he can actually hit something. Unfortunately for him, only rinos are statist on the "right". So, he's unlikely to hit anything meaningful with his scattergun.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Show me where the SC said you can buy a 50 cal machine gun. Show me where they said you can buy armor piercing rounds, silencers or machine pistols

I almost hate to burst your bubble here, but suppressors are legal under federal law.

I don't care.

I was asked what I thought should be restricted. I still think there is no legal reason to own a silencer. If you are defending yourself or your family there is no reason nobody should hear it

I agree with you completely that no one needs a suppressor, but it does happen to be legal. I thought you were trying to make the case that it is illegal to buy them already, if you were just giving an opinion on what should be illegal I apologize.

 

[Yurt]

How interesting that a conservative court is using liberal concept of incorporation. This was an issue that was best left to states' rights, but the court has decreed a monumental statist decision. Who knew the conservatives were secret collectivists?

lmao...you clearly have no clue what the "big" words you attempt to use here mean....

this is not a states rights issue, it is a US constitutional issue

 

[Jeremy]

Statist, statist, statist. pfft. So, In essance, the Constitution (regardless of the amendment) and the overall existance of the federal government, is statist totalitarianism? ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He's not confused, he's really a partisan moron. Too stupid to understand cause and effect or unintended consequences when ideology rules over common sense.

Can you please explain how your "Common Sense" applies to the case at hand?

Sense you said please...
Hand guns are too easily concealed, along with open carry laws there is a real danger of guns not protecting you or your family, but putting them at greater risk - not necessarily from you, but from others untrained or with evil intent.
Your side argues having a firearm makes you safer, and that maybe true. But, it seems not to make us, as a society safer, given the number of homicides, suicides and accidental deaths caused by firearms.
Will this decision mean that cheap handguns will now be for sale at Wall Mart? Best tell your kids and remind yourself the next time someone cuts you off on the road, to ignore them; for flipping them the bird or even looking at them with 'disprespect' may result in a violent response (hyperbole, maybe, but less than Condi Rice or Dick Cheney or Bush II suggesting not invading Iraq might result in a mushroom c loud).
I have no problem with someone having a firearm in their home for protecton. That said, an untrained person in a stressed state is less liikely to hit a threat with a handgun - especially a high powered weapon - and the potential for collaterial damage is great.

My greater concern is the Roberts Court has become extemely ideological and partisan, and is clearly what you conservatives feared - activist.

I went to Public High School in the South Bronx for one Year in the mid-1970's so I've seen first hand your Apocalyptic version of crazies with guns. Think of it as either the Liberal Utopia or the Reductio ad absurdum of a civilization where only the criminals have arms.

Not fun. Not fun at all.

 

[The T]

You do realize, don't you, that the Second takes precedence over the 10th, right?

No, doesn't look like you do. Well, guess what? Today's decision says it does.

ah, daveman, the secret statist, once again fulfills the meaning of my signature line.

Can you show me in the Constitution where it says an enumerated right can be left to the states to regulate?

I'll wait here.

On second thought, no, I won't. I don't have time to wait for something that doesn't exist.

Thing is? Enumerated rights States have NO say so over. It is hallowed ground and tells the Government...hands off.

The ONLY way is by Constitutional Convention, and the Amendments are re-written.

And that is the truth of the matter.

The whole shame of this decision? It Should have been 9-0 instead of 5-4.

We should be very afraid, and on our guard.

 

[daveman]

It's referred to as being "hoist on your own petard".

In common vernacular nowadays, "You (the "liberals") blew yourself up with your own bomb."

Sucks, huh?

You do realize, don't you, that the Second takes precedence over the 10th, right?

No, doesn't look like you do. Well, guess what? Today's decision says it does.

Did you really mean to quote me with that response?

If so, I'd be interested in hearing your formulation of Constitutional interpretation where one part of the Constitution "takes precedence" over another part.

Now, there is a particular reason why you happen to be right in this instance, not that it's applicable to the discussion at all, but you get bonus points if you can cite the case.

I made my point poorly. It's the 14th that prevents the States from restricting the right guaranteed by the 2nd:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

 

[Mini 14]

Just to clear up a few things being tossed about:

I am a Federally licensed gun dealer (Class I). In my State, there is no waiting period. If the FBI proceeds your background check, you walk out of the store with the gun. Other States have 3, 7, 10, and 30 day waiting periods for some or all firearms.

With a class III license, you can own almost any weapon out there. A class III consists of registering with the FBI and ATF as a license holder (including photographs and fingerprints), and passing a background check. Other than a higher fee to have a class III, the only other requirement (and the reason I do not have a class III) is that you waive your right to a warrantless search for any and all weapons registered to you. You have to notify ATF of the location of the weapon(s) at all times (even in transport) and you give any LE with jurisdiction the right to go wherever the weapon is (including your home) without a weapon in order to secure it. A class III allows you to possess and transport explosives as well. To my knowledge, the only weapons you are not allowed to possess with a class II are those classified as "proprietary" or top secret, and those reserved for military application only (we're talking nuclear weaponry here).

Silencers (suppressors) are also legal, but many States require a class III to have them. Montana doesn't, where they are used primarily by hunters as a courtesy to landowners.

Montana has taken up the fight with the Fed on gun rights. They are setting up to implement a State-wide system where the Federal Government is no longer involved in the process. If a firearm (or silencer) is manufactured in Montana, sold to a Montanan, and does not leave the State of Montana, they maintain that the Federal Government has no authority to enforce ANY restriction or regulation upon the buyer, seller, or State. The law went into effect in October of last year, but will not get really interesting until the Fed responds, which to my knowledge they haven't as of yet.

In any event, I just wanted to throw that out there. Overall, the ATF does a very good job, but you have to keep in mind that criminals don't go by ATF guidelines. They purchase their weapons on the street, from unlicensed sellers, or they steal them in burglaries. The adage "only criminals will have guns" is easily observed if you spend a week calling in 4473s to the FBI. There is nothing anyone can ever do to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals, other than killing all the criminals.

 

[daveman]

Incorporation is a fact, and your argument against it is unfactual. So you believe in incorporation, thus my libertarian fraud, you are a statist. Next.

Read it. Know it. Live it.

And quit making up shit about it.

You know nothing of what you write. I made you look like a fool yesterday with your silliness. I will do it again here if you persist.

You know how you could really make me look like a fool?

By showing the part of the Constitution that allows states to abridge rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

You ever gonna get around to doing that? Or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

 

[daveman]

ah, daveman, the secret statist, once again fulfills the meaning of my signature line.

Can you show me in the Constitution where it says an enumerated right can be left to the states to regulate?

I'll wait here.

On second thought, no, I won't. I don't have time to wait for something that doesn't exist.

Thing is? Enumerated rights States have NO say so over. It is hallowed ground and tells the Government...hands off.

The ONLY way is by Constitutional Convention, and the Amendments are re-written.

And that is the truth of the matter.

The whole shame of this decision? It Should have been 9-0 instead of 5-4.

We should be very afraid, and on our guard.

You are correct, sir.

 

[CMike]

What liberals think Americans need is irrelevant.