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

reply to post by Xcathdra

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.

It was only in "question" for those who sought to restrict the right to keep and bear arms. Look, the SCOTUS is not the end all and be all of the protection of rights, the People are. The state has a compelling argument when it comes to the regulation of militias. Militias, however, are comprised of the People, and if a "well regulated militia" is to form it is reliant upon the arms the People who comprise "keep and bear". A militia that has been restricted in terms of the arms it can keep and bear is obviously a crippled militia. What is the point of having a well regulated militia if they cannot match an enemy military - both foreign and domestic - in terms of arms?

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.

A "legal" right is a granted right. She has the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

That right does not extend to a different state when that state has no reciprocal agreements validating her TN ccw.

All rights are universal and work the same on Mars, or Jupiter in the very same way they work here on Earth.

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.

The Supreme Court has never reversed the dreadful Dred Scott ruling either.

Show me in the 2nd amendment where its specifically states a person has a right to carry a weapon concealed?

The Second Amendment is not a grant of a right to keep and bear arms it is an express prohibition on government from infringement of such a right. You show me where in the Second Amendment it specifically states that government can infringe upon that right if the weapon is 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.

Outside of protection of that right, the Second Amendment is not under the "purview" of the federal government. How many times do I have to assert this? The Second Amendment is an express prohibition against the infringement of of the People to keep and bear arms. It is not a power, outside regulation of militias, given to the federal government, nor is it any power reserved for the states. There is a reason the Ninth Amendment comes before the Tenth, and that is that the rights of the People are superior to states rights.

Secondly, again, you are ignoring established case law.

I am not ignoring any case law. When any court is in error, it is up to the People to correct that error.

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.

No it is not Dr. Frankenstein, it is meant to establish a federal government. The Bill of Rights was only added after the fact, and hotly debated as to whether it even should be added, in hopes of preventing the sort of nonsense you seem to be advocating right now.

Actually there was, which is why it took so long for the definition to be clarified.

Actually there wasn't, and I have no idea what you mean by "definition to be clarified". The fact of the matter is that since "arms" is not defined by the Second Amendment we must turn to the usage of the word in the ordinary meaning of that word when the Second Amendment was written. This is legal principle is explained in Eisner v. McComber.

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.

I am not sure we do agree. I am not speaking to conscription. I am speaking to the reason the People have the right to keep and bear arms, and it sure as hell ain't about conscription.

I am out of character space. I'll end this post here.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
It was only in "question" for those who sought to restrict the ..snipped for room

SCOTUS is the end of the line for legal challenges. The US Congress, representing the people, is able to correct Supreme Court mistakes via legislation, as was done with the Military Commission Act of 2006. When the Constitution was adopted I would agree that the people were considered militia. Since each State now days has a standing army, which is well regulated, the only thing left to qualify the citizens, is either the draft argument, or a Supreme Court ruling, which is what we ended up with.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
A "legal" right is a granted right. She has the unalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Show me in the 2nd amendment where it says she can carry a concealed weapon in another state in a weapons free zone. Also please show me where it states in the 2nd amendment its an unalienable right? Third the use of that word is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. 4th its inalienable.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
All rights are universal and work the same on Mars, or Jupiter in the very same way they work here on Earth.

Actually they are not universal, and they do not work the same on Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Tennessee or New York. She was not arrested for owning a gun. She was arrested for concealing it and bringing it into a weapon free zone.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Supreme Court has never reversed the dreadful Dred Scott ruling either.

They didn't need to since Congress and the States took care of the ruling by passing the 13th amendment followed up with the Civil Rights legislation during the 60's.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Second Amendment is not a grant of a right to keep and bear arm.......

Show me where the 2nd amendment specifically states an individual has a right to carry a weapon in a concealed manner? Your logic on this one appears to be that of arguing people who destroyed private and public property during the OWS protests were arrested for protesting. They were in fact arrested for property destruction, not protesting.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Outside of protection of that right, the Second Amendment is............

The 9th amendment is stating that the enumeration of rights does not mean those are the only rights the people have. Secondly it is under the purview of the government since the 2nd amendment does not specify what bearing arms is. Is it a gun? A rifle? sharpened stick? knife? Tea dumped in Boston harbor? the wife with no makeup?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I am not ignoring any case law. When any court is in ...officals.

Which occurs via our elected officials since we are a representative Republic and not a direct democracy.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
No it is not Dr. Frankenstein, it is meant to establish a federal government. The Bill of Rights was only added after the fact, and hotly debated as to whether it even should be added, in hopes of preventing the sort of nonsense you seem to be advocating right now.

You would be wrong here. If you dont believe me show me in the Constitution where it states an individual has a right to privacy? There is nothing in the Constitution granting a right to privacy. That has come through case law, legislation and Supreme Court rulings.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Actually there wasn't, and I have no idea what you mean by ".......

Eisner V. McComber deals with stocks and dividends and cash equivalents. However if your argument is it needed a court to determine / clarify the definition of each, then it also set the precedent for the challenges on the 2nd amendment and the use of the words militia, well regulated and bear arms.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I am not sure we do agree. I am not speaking to conscription. I am speaking to the reason the People have the right to keep and bear arms, and it sure as hell ain't about conscription.

Conscription is a key part of militia / military is it not?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I am out of character space. I'll end this post here.

Feel free to snip out the bulk of my responses for room to answer. In principle we agree, however we have different views on getting there.

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by FlyersFan

 

I suppose people in Tennessee expect any tourists to follow their laws, so what's the problem with New York wanting the same thing?

Obviously, someone that is looking to solve the situation in a legal way shouldn't be treated in the same way as someone that is trying to hide a loaded gun, so I think this will end in nothing.

Not knowing the law is never an excuse for breaking it, and a 39 years old medical student should know that.

Agreed. People should follow the local laws, wherever they may go, to avoid headaches. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

People who realize those laws are asinine should vote with their feet, and simply not go there, ever, nor do business with anyone who does, to avoid their money supporting stupidity.

She did commit a crime. She brought a gun to New York and didn't have a permit. She transported this gun from Tennessee, That in itself is a crime in New York. Honestly, I'm glad she turned herself in. I've owned rifles in the past. My stepfather who was a policeman, used to take my brother and I down to the local dump to shoot rats with his 45 service revolver . When there weren't rats to shoot, we'd set cans up and shoot them. I don't own any guns today. Don't really have a need for a gun. New York is a fairly safe place to live. I hear NYC is pretty much crime free today, most people get mugged more by the prices than anything else.

www.nyfirearms.com...

reply to post by Xcathdra

SCOTUS is the end of the line for legal challenges.

Thank God rights are not legal things and instead are unalienable things outside of the purview of government, no?

A challenge of a bogus legislative act is not a legal challenge it is a jurisdictional challenge.

The US Congress, representing the people, is able to correct Supreme Court mistakes via legislation, as was done with the Military Commission Act of 2006.

Really? Then how is that the Supreme Court in Boumedien v. Bush managed to strike down as unconstitutional the portion of that act attempting to suspend Habeas Corpus?

The Supreme Court, however, did not go far enough, but that has more to do with the narrow scope of Boumediene v. Bush than it does the Constitutionality of the Military Commission Act of 2006. That odious act of legislation still can be, and should be, challenged.

When the Constitution was adopted I would agree that the people were considered militia. Since each State now days has a standing army, which is well regulated, the only thing left to qualify the citizens, is either the draft argument, or a Supreme Court ruling, which is what we ended up with.

The People still are the militia and National Guards are not militia they are government military's. Also, take note how you went from referring to the People to replacing that term with the use of the word "citizen". A citizen is a person, but the People are not necessarily citizens.

Show me in the 2nd amendment where it says she can carry a concealed weapon in another state in a weapons free zone. Also please show me where it states in the 2nd amendment its an unalienable right? Third the use of that word is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. 4th its inalienable.

I have all ready answered this. Get this straight; The Bill of Rights is not a grant of rights, it is an express prohibition on the federal government regarding rights. I don't have to show you a goddamned thing, if you are seeking to restrict People's right to keep and bear arms, then it is incumbent upon you to show where in the Second Amendment government was granted authority to infringe upon that right under certain circumstances.

Actually they are not universal, and they do not work the same on Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Tennessee or New York. She was not arrested for owning a gun. She was arrested for concealing it and bringing it into a weapon free zone.

Actually, they are and they do. Rights to defend ones life are so universal that it is self evident that roses do not need any Congress of roses in order to derive the right to keep and bear thorns, porcupines do not need any decree from a king in order to derive the right to keep and bear needles and skunks do not need permission from the state in order to derive the right to spew their stink. All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. Legislation is not law, any more than a map is territory, or a word is the thing defined or a picture of Angelina Jolie is actually Angelina Jolie.

They didn't need to since Congress and the States took care of the ruling by passing the 13th amendment followed up with the Civil Rights legislation during the 60's.

You clearly know nothing about the Dred Scott ruling, and the 13th Amendment did not take care of the Dred Scott ruling it prohibited slavery. Perhaps you meant to state the 14th Amendment, but this Amendment did not reverse the Dred Scott ruling but instead is an Amendment that is in perfect harmony with the reasoning behind Dred Scott.

Show me where the 2nd amendment specifically states an individual has a right to carry a weapon in a concealed manner?

You can stick your fingers in your ears and scream "la la la la I can't hear you la la la" all you want, it doesn't make your argument any more compelling, nor is it a debating technique.

Your logic on this one appears to be that of arguing people who destroyed private and public property during the OWS protests were arrested for protesting. They were in fact arrested for property destruction, not protesting.

Stop deflecting. I never brought up OWS in this thread and you know it. Straw men arguments are not really debating techniques either.

In terms of "what are arms" again you only make yourself look foolish. You know damn well what arms are, so stop pretending such arguments actually work.

Conscription is a key part of militia / military is it not?

No.

Eisner v. McComber relies upon the legal principle that Congress cannot redefine a word in the Constitution to mean whatever they want it to mean. It must mean what it meant at the time it was written.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You really should learn to live in the real world with the rest of us instead of the land of make believe and disregard for anything you dont personally agree with.

She broke the law - plain and simple.

Do I agree with the law? I do not and think there should be a uniform standard across the country on this and similar topics.

Apparently the law in New York is valid since it has not been shot down yet by the courts.

game...set...match.

Originally posted by alonzo730
New York is a fairly safe place to live. I hear NYC is pretty much crime free today,

Um .. no.

Here's the NYC Homicide Map - 2011 is down, but not out

New York Criminal Justice Statistics

Fun little interactive crime map of NYC .. pick a date