As a United States citizen... why should I be subject to firearms laws of California,

originally posted by: ShAuNmAn-X
a reply to: Gryphon66 Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Crips, Bloods, Surenos, Nortenos, The Kardashians, just to name a few.

These are problems for "America"? LOL.

Okay. I think "America" is stronger than some others, apparently.

a reply to: Xcathdra

100% spot on.

2nd line

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...

I should be free to carry, and arm myself in all 50 states of this nation. It should be one of the instances federal law trumps local law.


If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

California is not it's own country.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

I'm not joining this argument for pro/anti gun reasons but I want to chime in that your argument is flawed if you believe marijuana should be allowed in stated where it is legal. Although I do not know your stance on that, I would like to point out that it is against federal law but some states allow it. Should the DEA lock up the farmers and store owners? The government don't seem to care about states enacted laws so I guess the states can dictate what you can and cannot do. I suggest moving.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Since the Crips, Bloods, Surenos, and Nortenos are now nation wide problems. Nancy Pelosi is a national disaster, and the Kardashians are just plain mind numbing ultra left indoctrination tools, yeah it's a problem for America.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Maybe because the federal government was never meant to have the power to regulate drugs.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Or to the People, or both.

Except nothing can be construed to deny people their rights whether enumerated or not as per the 9th. Abortion being a big one protected by the 9th. As much as I dislike abortion, I don’t think any of the more recent state laws in various states hampering abortion will stand under serious scrutiny. Why then should a state have exclusive power over a directly enumerated right such as gun ownership? And for that matter, if in part the Second is means for the People to keep the Federal government in checks and balances, how can the Federal government regulate types of firearms?

a reply to: Ahabstar

As for your question -
"Why then should a state have exclusive power over a directly enumerated right..."


In order to understand the issues you raised one must understand the history and application of our Federal Constitution. Contrary to whats taught in history classes the US Constitution never originally applied to citizens of the various new states. It only applied to those who worked for the federal government. During this time states used their own constitutions to govern their respective states, including firearms.

It was not until after the civil war in 1865 that the 14th amendment finally applied the US constitution to all states as the supreme law of the land (and even to this day not all amendments have been applied to the states by the US Supreme Court - an example is the 7th amendment - a right to a jury trial in civil suits).

Because of the delays in application of the US constitution to the states, gun laws were already present and have been in force of the various states for almost a hundred years. Scotus rulings attempted to strike a balance between federal and state sovereignty and as a result the 2nd amendment was applied to the states while allowing the states some freedom in regulating that area.

Keep in mind it was not until the Supreme Court ruling in Washington DC vs Heller in 2008 when the Supreme Court finally ruled that the 2nd amendment applied to the individual. Prior to that there was always an ambiguity of how the 2nd was interpreted - individual or militias or both. It was not until the scotus ruling in McDonald vs City of Chicago in 2010 that finally took on the question that was ignored in the Heller ruling (because DC is a federal district and not a state the raised issue was moot). The question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the state.

That ruling in 2010 settled that question and it is now seen that the 2nd amdnemnt "right to keep and bear arms" is protected under the Second Amendment and is incorporated by the Due Process Clause and/or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

In order for the federal government to impose these laws on the states they had to cleverly argue the supremacy clause (federal law trumps state law) and when that didnt seem to work they used the commerce clause. They successfully argued that because the items/components/materials/etc used to manufacture weapons cross state lines its under federal jurisdiction.

So again we have scotus rulings that attempt to strike a balance between federal law / constitutional law (at both levels of government) / state law. It was the use of the commerce clause that allowed the federal government to force the civil rights act onto the states and it was the insurrection act that allowed the federal government to federalize state national guard units to enforce that federal law on the states / cities that refused to comply.

As for regulating the type of firearm there are 2 answers. Well 1 answer and one example of how it works.
#1 - The scotus ruling in Heller defined what firearms are and set a threshold test to determine if banning a certain type of firearm is constitutional. The standard set was "commonly available to / commonly used by / in the possession of" the general public. A prime example is the AR-15 which is protected by the standards set forth in that ruling. A appeals circuit recently ruled Heller applies to magazine size as well as ammunition.

#2 - The freedom to travel within a state and or across state lines is constitutionally protected under several circuit court and supreme court rulings in the 1800's. Scotus interpreted the privileges and immunities clause of the US Constitution to include freedom of travel. While freedom of travel in a state or across state lines is constitutionally protected the method of travel is not. If you dont want to submit to a check at the airport then you can take a cab, drive, walk, hitchike etc etc.

By extension a person has the right to own, keep and bear arms however the type of arms is not (and as I have said Heller defined that further to create a test to determine constitutionality).

As we have seen thru the years the different branches of the federal government has their own authority to delegate all or some of its powers to other entities (federal reserve as an example in addition to application of federal immigration law, which is a congressional power that was delegated to the President under several laws).

Because State and the Federal government are separate sovereign you have areas that will overlap. One of those areas is law and crimes and if we give the authority to only the state or only the federal government one of those entities is going to be cut out of the process, which in and of itself could be seen as a violation of the 10th amendment and an injury to states rights under that amendment.

As for abortion I will point out that the ruling in Roe vs. Wade, in the opinion of the court, allowed states, once again, to regulate how abortion is handled within a defined box (just like the 2nd amendment and the Heller decision). Because it is a supreme court ruling it can be overturned and or modified so abortion is not a "right" as some people like to claim.

Sorry for the long winded reply.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I appreciate long winded replies when they are informative.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Xcathdra

I appreciate long winded replies when they are informative.

Hopefully you found the response informative...

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...

I should be free to carry, and arm myself in all 50 states of this nation. It should be one of the instances federal law trumps local law.


If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

California is not it's own country.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

Calif want's to be it's own country.

Everything they do seems to fly in the face of the constitution and the majority of the rest of your nation.

I believe they have tried more than once to secede from the union.

I say let em'..!!

Next time they try, the rest of the US should just say "OK, bye" and be done with them.

Calif is the one state holding the US back and keeping a majority of Dems in the house. Without them, conservatism will flourish and you'll be able to carry where ever the hell you want..!!

I wonder what the citizens of California in the wild wild west would of thought about giving up guns. They would say that's a nutty idea and they would be correct, just the same as it is now. What has changed with gangs, thieves, outlaws since then? Nothing.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...

I should be free to carry, and arm myself in all 50 states of this nation. It should be one of the instances federal law trumps local law.


If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

California is not it's own country.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

no man, Federal Law only trumps state law when it comes to Marijuana. Duh!

/sarcasm

originally posted by: Fowlerstoad
a reply to: Bluntone22

Maybe because the federal government was never meant to have the power to regulate drugs.

It wasn’t meant to restrict firearms. The second Amendment is there for a reason. I’ve been watching am interesting series calked “TURN- Washington’s Spies”, based on the book which was researched from newspapers of the time and such (probably some memoirs as well) so it does have a historical basis. There was indeed a team of 4 Patriots who spied for Washington on behalf of the Revolution. These people did this for our Liberty. The second Amendment indeed has a purpose and that is to protect us from tyranny. Would you take a moment to contemplate that ?
On the issue of regulating drugs, there are some which just aren’t worth using. A particular one is causing people to become quite ill. Weighing the two issues, I find that keeping the Second Amendment intact is far more valuable than anyone’s need to do certain drugs. Even for the purported value, I believe the ills far outweigh the benefits.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: Lumenari

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: EternalSolace
...New Jersey, New York, Maine...

I should be free to carry, and arm myself in all 50 states of this nation. It should be one of the instances federal law trumps local law.


If I want to conceal carry in California, then I should be allowed to.

California is not it's own country.

Prime example of when federal law needs to trump local law.

Fed law always trumps state law. Not sure what your beef is.

Not true at all.

A basic civics class is in order for you.

I enjoy your posts. And enjoy you as a poster.

Do you really want to disagree with the statement that federal law always trumps state law?

Ask abortion law states.

Ask legal marijuana states.

Ask gun law states.

The 10th Amendment isn't exactly dead yet.

Actually marijuana is still illegal by federal law including states that have legalized marijuana. The feds just don’t enforce it.

You know, I've come a long way on this issue, and I think the Fed's handling of that contradiction is an okay compromise. I think it is appropriate for federal law enforcement to focus on interstate trafficking, while respecting individual state laws. I would ultimately like Barr to instruct the Surgeon General to conduct an investigation regarding the current classification of the plant, but that's probably more of a topic for RATS.

best!
z

Some food for thought constitutioncenter.org...
More stuff to consider www.madisonbrigade.com...

a reply to: Gryphon66

I think your assessment is fair. I think prohibition generally is only useful in retrospect, e.g. after an infraction has occurred, and that is a useful thing. On the other hand, a prohibition on carrying in a school, for instance, is not particularly effective as I believe recent history has shown. It seems to me that it just makes for soft targets.

I can't remember when, but I think shortly after the Parkland shooting I recommended arming custodians. Allowing custodians to take custody not only of the property, but of the safety of the students and faculty would, I think, be a great thing. It would empower the people in what is largely a thankless job to use their knowledge of the day-in-day-out happenings of the school to recognize when something is amiss. It would put the custodian into the class of "first responder" in many situations, not necessarily the mortal emergency ones. It would require more extensive background checks for the job, but would open a whole host of opportunities for former military and law enforcement. It would make being a custodian a badge of honor.

Or maybe I'm just pitching an action movie called "the Custodian"

best!
z