It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tennessee and New York in 'war' over gun rights and common sense

page: 5
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
The right to BEAR arms is written in constitution , and so on it applies to the WHOLE country.
There is no excuse for federal laws that abuse the constitution. Therefore i'm certain that this woman from Tennessee will kick NY prosecutors asses, because she can always refer to the constitution.

I'm from Vermont but i have never been in NYC, wouldn't like to say goodbye to my Ruger P97.
edit on 22-1-2012 by piotrburz because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I live in NY state, and in the middle ground. The middle ground between the opposing extreme views on gun control.

The discussion on gun control has become all or nothing. Gun rights activists are working towards complete freedom. Buy any gun,without a wait, open carry it anywhere, and all will be well. Gun control activists think guns are evil tools. That zero guns is desirable. The debate on guns is moneyed and fought from these two extreme viewpoints.

Im in the middle.

I think high powered weapons should require extensive background checks.I think it is our constitutional right to carry arms.The two are not mutually exclusive.

The law against carry in NYC is unconstitutional.She was openly defying a law, albeit an unconstitutional one.A person cant break laws because they challenge the veracity of the law. If we all did that everyday, it would be anarchy. Their is a process. She was wrong. But I do agree, jail is not the way.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Wait till they devalue the dollar, they'll need an entire army in Manhattan to stop the pillage and plunder for food from the starving, NYC and Chicago made their own beds with gun control and now they can sleep in it. Anybody that tells you you're safe in these cities is nuts. I don't know where the designated FEMA Camps are around these cities buy I'd wager there's alot of them.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


The problem with that is that, if I recall correctly, New York State and New York City have different gun laws..it's possible she did look up NY State's gun laws and been perfectly well within the law for that..but then going to NYC and not realizing it was different is where she may have gotten into trouble. Again, I'm not certain on that one, but pretty sure that's how it is.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by alonzo730
 


The argument would be that states rights come from the 10th Amendment and says that anything not covered in the Constitution is left to the people and the states...which I'm all for..but when the 2nd Amendment states the right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon, that's where the problems come in. The states technically don't have the right to do that then.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starwise
I am sorry that this happened to her.....BUT, I just received my CCW in December and they made it a point to tell us in class, "KNOW THE LAWS OF ANY STATE YOU TRAVEL TO!!" New York has the toughest laws on the books. (along with California) In New York you can not have hollow points, but you can have FMJs if you carry conceal and are a resident of NY.....


Goes to show the IQ of New York lawmakers. FMJs can travel through someone to hit anyone behind them. Hollow points most often stop inside the person you're shooting at. I guess NY likes as many dead people as possible. That also explains why they don't like responsible citizens carrying guns. Everyone must be a victim.

/TOA



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 


Concur with you on never living in, traveling through or in any way having anything to do with NY. I've been called crazy but I've turned down weekend contracts of over 10K a day for NYC clients on the principal. NY is so backwards that they even want to tax you on income you make elsewhere, if you ever set foot in the state. I've worked in the most crime stricken neighborhoods of major metros and never had a problem, but I carry to ensure if there ever would be, it wouldn't by mine. I wouldn't feel safe up there, between the cut-throat bankers that own congress and the anti-American gun laws and inept majors.

These anti-American, nanny state, idiots can keep the big apple and all the rotten fruit it bears....



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Tennessee should declare all licenses issued by the State of New York to be invalid until New York recognizes ALL licenses issued by the State of Tennessee!



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 





Does the fact that the second amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms forbids the states that ratified that amendment from making laws and/or regulations to limit those rights in some way?

If it does, are there any cases in which the states that have their own limiting laws were accused of having an unconstitutional law?


The Second Amendment, nor any one of the Amendments within the Bill of Rights "gives" any rights at all. The language of each Amendment in the Bill of Rights is clear and express in its prohibitive nature. The Bill of Rights prohibits the federal government from denying and/or disparaging the rights of the People.

The SCOTUS in McDonald v. Chicago held that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights thus binding the states to the same prohibitions.

The problem here is that too many take a view that rights can only be granted and do not exist outside of such grant. However, unalienable, by definition means non-transferable and therefore something that cannot be granted.

The only just reason to establish government is for the protection of individual rights. The best way to ensure that a just government remains just is to have a heavily armed populace. The best way to ensure tyranny can flourish is to disarm the People.

Since time immemorial, from Sun Tzu to von Clauswitz, military strategists have insisted that the first thing a military must do when engaging the enemy is to disarm them. When a government is doing such a thing in regards to the People they serve, from a military point of view it is quite clear that government views the People they serve as the enemy.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thanks for the answer, I think I understand it now.


Does that mean that, as an unalienable right, anyone can keep their arms when they are arrested, for example?

Or do people lose their rights when they go to jail?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Thanks for the answer, I think I understand it now.


Does that mean that, as an unalienable right, anyone can keep their arms when they are arrested, for example?

Or do people lose their rights when they go to jail?


What People do that causes no harm, they do by right. Outside of that maxim there is a limited and very narrow scope when a person has the right to harm another. Defense. Self defense, defense of property, or defense of others in need of that defense.

If what a person does that caused no harm but have been charged with a crime for that action, legally speaking, the state or federal government has the responsibility of proving that action actually caused harm. When an individual causes harm out of defense it becomes incumbent upon the individual to prove that it was indeed defense.

In terms of imprisonment for a crime, no rights are "taken away", the state or federal government has reserved the right to deny and disparage that right, i.e. right to keep and bear arms, in order to imprison them for the crime they committed. It is not as if criminals "forfeit" their rights, it is just that because they have been convicted of denying and disparaging the rights of another, or others, it becomes imperative to do the same to them by imprisoning them.

Any person who has had their rights violated has the right and legal standing to seek remedy. The imprisonment of the criminal who violated that right is one such remedy.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So, does it mean that the state(s) can legally suspend that person's right to keep and bear arms? Isn't that as anti-constitutional (or even more) as having specific laws limiting that right without negating it?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


So, does it mean that the state(s) can legally suspend that person's right to keep and bear arms? Isn't that as anti-constitutional (or even more) as having specific laws limiting that right without negating it?


I never asserted that rights get "suspended" when a criminal is imprisoned. I asserted that as a remedy offered for the person who was victimized by the criminal, that criminal's rights are being denied and disparaged as a part of the remedy.

I understand that you think you can use my own arguments to point out the perceived flaw in them, but if there is a flaw in my argument then you wouldn't have to twist my words and pretend I said something other than I did in order to reveal the flaw in my argument.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I never asserted that rights get "suspended" when a criminal is imprisoned. I asserted that as a remedy offered for the person who was victimized by the criminal, that criminal's rights are being denied and disparaged as a part of the remedy.
So, that action is to compensate the victim?



I understand that you think you can use my own arguments to point out the perceived flaw in them, but if there is a flaw in my argument then you wouldn't have to twist my words and pretend I said something other than I did in order to reveal the flaw in my argument.
I'm just trying to understand how things work in the US, as here in Portugal we have, apparently, a much different idea of what are inalienable rights, so all this talk is hard for me to understand, specially when you use words and expressions with which I am not familiar with.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 





So, that action is to compensate the victim?


As I pointed out earlier, there is a limited and very narrow scope of when any individual has the right to cause harm. That right to cause harm is in defense. Self defense, defense of property, or defense of others in need of that defense.

If you are attempting to kill me and in my defense I am faced with a kill or be killed scenario, you have not forfeited your right to life, nor am I "suspending" that right, I am willfully denying and disparaging your right to life in order to protect and defend my own.

When individuals come together to establish a government, it is the People who - at all times - hold the inherent political power, and any power a government derives is derived from the People who've ordained that government. The People will allow a government to have many of the same rights they possess, including the right to - in a very limited and narrow scope - to cause harm to another as defense.




I'm just trying to understand how things work in the US, as here in Portugal we have, apparently, a much different idea of what are inalienable rights, so all this talk is hard for me to understand, specially when you use words and expressions with which I am not familiar with.



un·al·ien·a·ble adj. Not to be separated, given away, or taken away; inalienable


www.thefreedictionary.com...



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean, so I think it's better to let things as they are now instead of flooding the thread with my doubts.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


While I understand your argument you seem to be ignoring the fact that the while the 2nd amendment, in addition to the Chicago and DC Supreme Court rulings allow a citizen to the right to own / possess a weapon, it still allows the states to determine the rules for the carrying of those weapons within their borders.

Full faith and credit, which many people like to cite yet not fully understand, grants the US Congress the right to determine what documents are covered. The lady from Tennessee has a right to own as well as carry that weapon on her person in the state of Tennessee. Absent Federal legislation that forces the State of New York to accept credentials issued by Tennessee, she is in fact in violation of New York Law when it comes to carrying a concealed weapon.

As I stated in my first post this area should be something the Federal Government should deal with, standardizing the carry / conceal carry laws when a person travels across a state line. The Supreme Court rulings have cleared the ambiguity on who is covered by the 2nd amendment. However, those recent rulings did not touch on the earlier precedents the USSC established when it ruled the states have the legal authority to establish rules when it comes to the regulation of weapons within a states boundary. There is also an established legal standard, partially reinforced by the DC ruling, with regards to the legal differences between open carry and conceal carry.

Dont get me wrong you and I are of the same mindset. I am just pointing out a flaw in your legal argument that needs to be resolved.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 





While I understand your argument you seem to be ignoring the fact that the while the 2nd amendment, in addition to the Chicago and DC Supreme Court rulings allow a citizen to the right to own / possess a weapon, it still allows the states to determine the rules for the carrying of those weapons within their borders.


The Second Amendment does not "allow" anything other than the regulation of militias, certainly not the ownership of arms. You are necessarily ignoring the express language of prohibition of the 2nd Amendment in order to reach the determination that People are "allowed" to keep and bear arms.




Full faith and credit, which many people like to cite yet not fully understand, grants the US Congress the right to determine what documents are covered. The lady from Tennessee has a right to own as well as carry that weapon on her person in the state of Tennessee. Absent Federal legislation that forces the State of New York to accept credentials issued by Tennessee, she is in fact in violation of New York Law when it comes to carrying a concealed weapon.


Full faith and credit has nothing to do with this. The right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and no person needs federal legislation in order to find standing to assert such a right, especially when charged with a "crime" for exercising that right.




As I stated in my first post this area should be something the Federal Government should deal with, standardizing the carry / conceal carry laws when a person travels across a state line.


"Carry and conceal" acts of legislation do not need to be standardized, they need to be challenged as the unlawful and bogus acts of legislation they are.




Supreme Court rulings have cleared the ambiguity on who is covered by the 2nd amendment.


There was never any ambiguity as to whom has the right, merely clowns playing games of semantics over the phrase "well regulated militia".




Dont get me wrong you and I are of the same mindset. I am just pointing out a flaw in your legal argument that needs to be resolved.


I know we are, Brother, and I enjoyed your initial post greatly.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:43 PM
link   
What a lot of people seem to overlook is the fact that she willingly sought out a police officer in order to comply
With a rule she just learned about.
Therefore showing a willingness to comply with rules and laws.
Also if there are no guns allowed in New York city why do they have a "no fire arms" sign at the 911 memorial?
Could that be considered entrapment?
As far as mayor "blooming idiot" and the coc aine comment.
Her lawyers can probably now argue that she cannot get a fair trail in New York due to his comments.
At the least she has a good defamation lawsuit against him.
And if she did posses illegal drugs why would she approach a police officer and why was she not
charged with possession?



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Second Amendment does not "allow" anything other than the regulation of militias, certainly not the ownership of arms. You are necessarily ignoring the express language of prohibition of the 2nd Amendment in order to reach the determination that People are "allowed" to keep and bear arms.

Which was in question until the DC and Chicago Supreme Court rulings, which answered the question on whether or not by people it was referring to the militia, citizens or both. As I stated in my post, its been applied to the individual, however those Supreme Court rulings did not change the previous rulings they made allowing the states to regulate how those "arms" are regulated in terms of where they can be carried and in what manner.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Full faith and credit has nothing to do with this. The right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right and no person needs federal legislation in order to find standing to assert such a right, especially when charged with a "crime" for exercising that right.

On the contrary it has everything to do with this. In the state of Tennessee she has the legal right to carry a concealed weapon. That right does not extend to a different state when that state has no reciprocal agreements validating her TN ccw. Again the Supreme Court did not change their previous rulings on the ability of the states to regulate how the arms are carried and where they can or cannot be taken. You are ignoring established case law.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
"Carry and conceal" acts of legislation do not need to be standardized, they need to be challenged as the unlawful and bogus acts of legislation they are.

Show me in the 2nd amendment where its specifically states a person has a right to carry a weapon concealed? If you are going to argue a strict interpretation then anything not specifically stated as the purview of the federal government is reserved for the states. Secondly, again, you are ignoring established case law. The US constitution is meant to be a living document, able to change with the times, as we saw with prohibition, slavery and the right for women to vote.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
There was never any ambiguity as to whom has the right, merely clowns playing games of semantics over the phrase "well regulated militia".

Actually there was, which is why it took so long for the definition to be clarified. As far as my opinion on well regulated militia I actually agree with you. If the Federal Government has the ability to draft people into military service, then any person that can affect is part of a well regulated militia.



Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I know we are, Brother, and I enjoyed your initial post greatly.

The game is afoot


The fundamental question in this case is not about the females right to possess a weapon. Whats being called into question is did she have a legal right to be in possession of that item, concealed, in the location she was at?

As I said, there needs to be a federal law (actually there is one, peaceable travels, however it only applies when a person is passing through a state with no intention of stopping) along the same lines as the one for law enforcement. Even then there are restrictions to it which forces leos to conform to state laws. As an example I am required by that federal law to have my badge and credential card with me while traveling in another state, regardless if that state allows / does not allow ccw. However, I am prohibited from taking my weapon into locations that are prohibited by that states laws - IE if a restaurant states no conceal carry, I cannot legally enter that establishment with my weapon, regardless of the federal law.

In the case of this woman, the port authority of New York and New Jersey owns the actual land the memorial is on, making the memorial site government property, meaning they can regulate firearms in the same manner they can for any government land / parks / court house etc.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join