You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
National Reciprocity - now in the Senate; plus other bills of note
- Thread starter MLeake
- Start date
If one claims it's a states' rights issue, then one should not want the federal courts involved, either.
It's disingenuous to say the federal courts ordering the states to come up with fixes is truly honoring the concept of states' rights.
I know the difference between judicial and legislative.
I also know that when the Supreme Court ordered integration of schools, it was the President and the US Army that made it happen, or else the state and its national guard would have blocked integration.
So, those who want a judicial fix have to realize the judiciary can only enforce their injunctions through action of the executive.
(Edit: although I suppose it's also possible the legislative branch, which controls budgets, could impose sanctions via withholding of funds, either in cooperation with the executive or via override of any Presidential veto. Either way, the judiciary can't enforce orders and injunctions without the assistance of one or both of the other branches of government.)
It's disingenuous to say the federal courts ordering the states to come up with fixes is truly honoring the concept of states' rights.
I know the difference between judicial and legislative.
I also know that when the Supreme Court ordered integration of schools, it was the President and the US Army that made it happen, or else the state and its national guard would have blocked integration.
So, those who want a judicial fix have to realize the judiciary can only enforce their injunctions through action of the executive.
(Edit: although I suppose it's also possible the legislative branch, which controls budgets, could impose sanctions via withholding of funds, either in cooperation with the executive or via override of any Presidential veto. Either way, the judiciary can't enforce orders and injunctions without the assistance of one or both of the other branches of government.)
- Andrew Jackson, in response to the Supreme Court order against relocation of the Cherokee.Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"
Last edited:
CountZerO: Make it an extra crime for Posession of a weapon is not a good thing...USE of a weapon in perpetrating a VIOLENT felony...that is different.
There is a big problem in what different states count as felonies, and what different states classify as a weapon.
DWI which cause the death of someone can be classed as involuntary manslauter, a felony almost everywhere. If you have a pocket knife in your pocket, it could be called a concealed weapon, or if you had a handgun in your glove box...but neither would have anything to do with the felony itself. Same goes for some states and possession of some legal and illegal drugs.
I will give you an example here: Your wife/girlfriend (or husband) is ill, she has a prescription for one of those nasty pain killers, say oxycodone. You go to town to pick up the prescription, you have a weapon with you, and you have an accident...cops find the prescription...you are in possession of a controlled substance that has not been prescribed to you...Have you done anything wrong? No, will you have to prove it in court...maybe, and in court, you never know the outcome until it's over.
That is totally different than armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, or first degree murder using a deadly weapon. Be careful what you wish for.
There is a big problem in what different states count as felonies, and what different states classify as a weapon.
DWI which cause the death of someone can be classed as involuntary manslauter, a felony almost everywhere. If you have a pocket knife in your pocket, it could be called a concealed weapon, or if you had a handgun in your glove box...but neither would have anything to do with the felony itself. Same goes for some states and possession of some legal and illegal drugs.
I will give you an example here: Your wife/girlfriend (or husband) is ill, she has a prescription for one of those nasty pain killers, say oxycodone. You go to town to pick up the prescription, you have a weapon with you, and you have an accident...cops find the prescription...you are in possession of a controlled substance that has not been prescribed to you...Have you done anything wrong? No, will you have to prove it in court...maybe, and in court, you never know the outcome until it's over.
That is totally different than armed robbery, assault with a deadly weapon, or first degree murder using a deadly weapon. Be careful what you wish for.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
But that was NOT the fact-specific holding of Heller. Nowhere in Heller did the SCTUS rule that the RKBA stops at the front door; they simply did not rule specifically that the RKBA does NOT stop at the front door. And the reason they did not say that is because that was not the question before them. The specific question before them was whether the DC law requiring that a firearm inside the home must be locked up or disassembled was an unconstitutional infringement on the 2nd Amendment.Al Norris said:The States are converting the carry argument to one of concealed carry. So far, the majority of courts are saying one or both of two things:
1. You do not have a right to concealed carry (a mischaracterization of our arguments).
2. The right to carry stops at the threshold of your home (the fact specific holding of Heller as opposed to the general holding).
The fact that lower courts with a bias against individuals being allowed to carry guns are twisting and contorting the Heller ruling to pretend that it says the 2nd Amendment ONLY applies within the home doesn't make it so. Such lower court rulings are departures from and/or expansions beyond Heller]/i] and are being attacked wherever they arise.
Correct. The Court responded to the question at hand, which was that of keeping and carrying guns in the home. They held that "bear" meant "carry," and that the scope of the right was the most "acute" in the home. Nowhere did Scalia say it was limited to the home, however.Nowhere in Heller did the SCOTUS rule that the RKBA stops at the front door; they simply did not rule specifically that the RKBA does NOT stop at the front door.
In fact, he made a point of mentioning the carrying of guns in "sensitive places," and as much as I disdain that part, the limitation wouldn't have been mentioned otherwise.
Al...
In the other thread about the reciprocity bill,
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468663,
you'd pointed out several changes in the bill as first proposed that were in the one passed by the House, e.g. instead of the bill's justification being the 2nd and 14th Amendments it became the Commerce Clause (gah!). Those changes and your argument concerning the motive for them actually swung me from a tentative supporter to a firm opposer. I felt you were correct that those subtle alterations did in fact make it a likely Trojan horse.
I never really understood exactly WHY a solidly Republican majority would make such changes, or why the NRA continued to trumpet the legislation as if nothing had happened to it, but I was reassured by the likelihood that the legislation had no chance of becoming law.
I don't consider myself a member of the Tin Hat Society, and I agree with Glenn (also somewhere in that thread, IIRC) that the gun-control crowd's MO doesn't seem innovative nor subtle enough to be behind this, but just where did those changes come from? Just typical Congressional lust for power? I'd hate to think this is a dead letter only to see it pass and then have Obama sign it in triumph.
*sigh*. Have I been watching too much TV? This thing makes my shoulder-blades twitch, somehow.
Dan
In the other thread about the reciprocity bill,
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=468663,
you'd pointed out several changes in the bill as first proposed that were in the one passed by the House, e.g. instead of the bill's justification being the 2nd and 14th Amendments it became the Commerce Clause (gah!). Those changes and your argument concerning the motive for them actually swung me from a tentative supporter to a firm opposer. I felt you were correct that those subtle alterations did in fact make it a likely Trojan horse.
I never really understood exactly WHY a solidly Republican majority would make such changes, or why the NRA continued to trumpet the legislation as if nothing had happened to it, but I was reassured by the likelihood that the legislation had no chance of becoming law.
I don't consider myself a member of the Tin Hat Society, and I agree with Glenn (also somewhere in that thread, IIRC) that the gun-control crowd's MO doesn't seem innovative nor subtle enough to be behind this, but just where did those changes come from? Just typical Congressional lust for power? I'd hate to think this is a dead letter only to see it pass and then have Obama sign it in triumph.
*sigh*. Have I been watching too much TV? This thing makes my shoulder-blades twitch, somehow.
Dan
I never really understood exactly WHY a solidly Republican majority would make such changes,
Could it be the majority does not care about our Second Amendment rights? Could it be about power?
Could it be the majority does not care about our Second Amendment rights? Could it be about power?
How about the thought of having the Constitution as the basis of a new law/act supporting the 2A just sits wrong with our elected officials?
I think you mean the Bill of Rights, as opposed to the Commerce Clause. Both are parts of the Constitution.
I'd prefer a basis in 2nd Amendment law, myself, but realistically I don't think we are anywhere close to getting nationwide constitutional carry, and I would suggest that the antis aren't the only camels who can nose under a tent flap.
I'd prefer a basis in 2nd Amendment law, myself, but realistically I don't think we are anywhere close to getting nationwide constitutional carry, and I would suggest that the antis aren't the only camels who can nose under a tent flap.