So now it's Indiana's turn...

[jamil]

I hate the idea of Constitutional Carry. I love the idea of being able to carry in all 50 states, but that decision should be left to the individual states to decide.

I don't really see an issue against constitutional carry. The people that carry legally are generally no threat. The people that don't carry legally would carry either way. The biggest difference I see is that you'd have one less thing to charge criminals with. There are enough constitutional carry states to tell if this is a big deal or not. I think it could easily happen in Indiana. But there are too many high population blue states for it to be a federal law.

At the national level to get that would probably require some really crazy compromises. I think the reciprocity carrot they stuffed in the Bill Shumer & Manchin put together after Sandy Hook was an example where the only way we get something at the national level, is to give up a lot more.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" leaves room for the States to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms?

Incorporation aside, the founders never intended for to apply to the States.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't really see an issue against constitutional carry. The people that carry legally are generally no threat. The people that don't carry legally would carry either way. The biggest difference I see is that you'd have one less thing to charge criminals with. There are enough constitutional carry states to tell if this is a big deal or not. I think it could easily happen in Indiana. But there are too many high population blue states for it to be a federal law.

At the national level to get that would probably require some really crazy compromises. I think the reciprocity carrot they stuffed in the Bill Shumer & Manchin put together after Sandy Hook was an example where the only way we get something at the national level, is to give up a lot more.

I have no issue with a compact. I have issue with the federal govt issuing dictates on states.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why? we now have gay rights to marriage in all 50 states....states rights don't mean crap anymore.

True, but that doesn't mean we should just roll over and let the feds decide what we can and can't do without some opposition.

 

[jamil]

I have no issue with a compact. I have issue with the federal govt issuing dictates on states.

I tend to agree, except...

True, but that doesn't mean we should just roll over and let the feds decide what we can and can't do without some opposition.

Consistency.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I tend to agree, except...



Consistency.

In what way?

 

[jamil]

I think incorporation was a mistake. It gives the federal government too much power. It's one of the major breaches of the Constitution in US history. But, incorporation is here to stay. That's not changing.

So while I'm off in my ideological world trying to make my principles compatible with an unrealistic reality, someone else in the real world is using incorporation to relieve me of even more liberties.

I'm saying, it's time to make it work the other way. I can believe Incorporation is unconstitutional and still live in the real world where it will never go away. I'm more okay with the government saying that states can't restrict certain freedoms than with government saying states have to restrict certain freedoms.

 

[chipbennett]

Incorporation aside, the founders never intended for to apply to the States.

Really? How do you figure?

The second amendment doesn't use "Congress shall make no law..." or any similar construct. It says, "the right of the people shall not...", implying that the right exists inherently, and shall not be infringed by any entity subject to the Constitution (which would be all levels of government, and all of "We The People").

And if it wasn't clear enough already, incorporation made it moreso.

 

[jamil]

Really? How do you figure?

The second amendment doesn't use "Congress shall make no law..." or any similar construct. It says, "the right of the people shall not...", implying that the right exists inherently, and shall not be infringed by any entity subject to the Constitution (which would be all levels of government, and all of "We The People").

And if it wasn't clear enough already, incorporation made it moreso.

I don't want to get drug into this. The fact that many states made unchallenged laws that the constitution forbids, suggests that those State laws were not thought to be unconstitutional.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't want to get drug into this. The fact that many states made unchallenged laws that the constitution forbids, suggests that those State laws were not thought to be unconstitutional.

Georgia attempted to pass a handgun ban into law in 1837. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, in no uncertain terms (Nunn v State (GA):

Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia

 

[Kutnupe14]

Really? How do you figure?

The second amendment doesn't use "Congress shall make no law..." or any similar construct. It says, "the right of the people shall not...", implying that the right exists inherently, and shall not be infringed by any entity subject to the Constitution (which would be all levels of government, and all of "We The People").

And if it wasn't clear enough already, incorporation made it moreso.

So your contention was the founders generated the BoRs, which flip flopped from state to feds in which who it applied??? Chip, that's not how it was bro.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Georgia attempted to pass a handgun ban into law in 1837. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, in no uncertain terms (Nunn v State (GA):



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia

Let's go back a bit further, and look at the words of James Madison, "The Father of the Constitution" upon the introduction of the BoRs:

I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdicts the abuse of certain powers in the state legislatures, some other provisions of equal if not greater importance than those already made. The words, “No state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, &c.” were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the state governments than by the government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controuled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no state shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Madison's proposal was soundly rejected.

 

[olhorseman]

Ah, Maine.... the forgotten state.

Good on 'em

Uh, no! Remember the Maine!

 

[chipbennett]

So your contention was the founders generated the BoRs, which flip flopped from state to feds in which who it applied??? Chip, that's not how it was bro.

The need to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights against the States only happened because government, at all levels (as they are wont to do) encroached upon their enumerated authority in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects pre-existing, inviolable, individual rights. There is no reasonable reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that would conclude that the intent of the founding document was for the States to have the power to infringe upon those pre-existing, inviolable, individual rights explicitly enumerated for protection in the Bill of Rights.

In over-simplified terms, the Bill of Rights state: here are several things that the People reserve for themselves. Everything else, if not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, is left to the States, or to the People.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The need to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights against the States only happened because government, at all levels (as they are wont to do) encroached upon their enumerated authority in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects pre-existing, inviolable, individual rights. There is no reasonable reading of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that would conclude that the intent of the founding document was for the States to have the power to infringe upon those pre-existing, inviolable, individual rights explicitly enumerated for protection in the Bill of Rights.

In over-simplified terms, the Bill of Rights state: here are several things that the People reserve for themselves. Everything else, if not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, is left to the States, or to the People.

I tend to agree. If the 2A was only meant to apply to congress, the federal government, or only to the states, they likely would have included the necessary verbiage to state that. There's nothing in the BoR's preamble that says everything hereunder applies to the feds unless specifically stated. There's no "scope" section of the BoRs that tell us whose covered by what and whose not. I've always considered the 2A as applying equally to the feds and the states for these reasons.

 

[Thor]

Uh, no! Remember the Maine!

Time to go kick some Cuban backside! On to San Juan Hill!

 

[Kutnupe14]

I tend to agree. If the 2A was only meant to apply to congress, the federal government, or only to the states, they likely would have included the necessary verbiage to state that. There's nothing in the BoR's preamble that says everything hereunder applies to the feds unless specifically stated. There's no "scope" section of the BoRs that tell us whose covered by what and whose not. I've always considered the 2A as applying equally to the feds and the states for these reasons.

There was no need to state that Constitution applied only to the Federal government as that was discussed at its drafting, and universally understood. Madison pushed for it to also apply to the States (read my quote above), but the anti-Federalists wouldn't have it.
Seriously GFGT, do you think I made up Madison's quote, and if not, WHY would he say what he said?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There was no need to state that Constitution applied only to the Federal government as that was discussed at its drafting, and universally understood. Madison pushed for it to also apply to the States (read my quote above), but the anti-Federalists wouldn't have it.
Seriously GFGT, do you think I made up Madison's quote, and if not, WHY would he say what he said?

I read your quote and by itself, not in any context, I can only say "so?". Maybe the other guys there thought it was unneeded as they had it covered with the existing language. The Constitution did not only apply to the federal government. Otherwise there wouldn't have been all that language in there, of certain provisions, applying to the states. Then there's the 10th A where it states powers not prohibited to it are reserved by the states -- or something to that effect.

 

[chipbennett]

There was no need to state that Constitution applied only to the Federal government as that was discussed at its drafting, and universally understood. Madison pushed for it to also apply to the States (read my quote above), but the anti-Federalists wouldn't have it.
Seriously GFGT, do you think I made up Madison's quote, and if not, WHY would he say what he said?

The constitution never applied only to the federal government. It is impossible that it could ever have applied only to the federal government, or that it was intended to apply only to the federal government. There are explicit references to authority enumerated to and withheld from the States.