Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Again, when some of the founding fathers were on the board of governors at the University Of Virginia, they passed a rule saying no guns were allowed on campus. They didn't say you could have a gun as long as you weren't threatening someone...they said you could not possess a gun on campus at all. The founding fathers apparently did not believe that such a ban was a violation of the second amendment.

As explained to you, the Founders did not consider that the Bill of Rights applied to the individual states. At the time, the individual states were sovereign entities. Actually, they were considered separate "countries." And those countries agreed to a compact with each other for the purposes of mutual protection and free trade economic relationships. They were jealous to protect their own ability to govern themselves, and were fearful of a central power dictating to them what they could or could not do and which could tax them at will, as the British were trying to do and which inflamed the Revolution in the first place.

The struggle in the Constitutional Convention was to make their compact strong enough to work as they intended it to, but not to be so strong that it could willy nilly dictate to, or tax, the states. On the contrary, writing the Constitution was an act of the sovereign states dictating to the federal power which they created. That Constitution gave the central government certain powers, as enumerated in their final Constitution. And it constrained the federal government to, and only to, those powers. Any remaining power of government rested with the states and their citizens to construe. Each state had its own constitution.

The Constitution they created was intended to apply to the federal government. The Supremacy clause that you previously alluded to gave federal law supremacy only within the limited powers that their Constitution allowed. The Supremacy clause did not give the central government supreme power over the separate states. On the contrary, the states retained most of the powers, the "vast residuum" to which Madison referred. The states have tremendous power, constitutionally, over the federal government, if they chose to assert it. The difficulty is getting 3/4's of them to agree on wielding that power. The states have the power to dissolve the federal government and go on their separate ways or form a new compact.

A small example of state power vs federal in current politics is the formation of sanctuary cities. The federal government cannot ban them. It can only threaten to hold back federal funds to those cities. But federal funds to cities or states is another can of worms. Federal funds are used as a carrot/stick to dictate to states in ways they have no constitutional authority to do.

In short, I'm getting to verbose as usual, Madison and Jefferson didn't apply the 2nd Amendment to the states, only to the central government.

I'm not someone who thinks the constitution is a living, evolving document. I prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted. The evidence seems compelling to me (we can disagree obviously), that they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.

The Founders didn't restrict the states by the 2nd Amendment. States had their own constitutions which applied to and were supported by their citizens. So, whatever gun control the states wanted to apply would have to be decided by permission of their citizens. So, if the board of governors of the university wanted to disallow guns on campus, Jefferson and Madison would have thought they had the right to do so, any objections they might have had notwithstanding. If you think that meant that Madison and Jefferson also meant the federal government could also control private ownership of guns, you are wrong. Such a notion is not, as you put it, well within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

If one could construe that any state action would somehow be evidence that the federal government had the same power, and that the federal government was supreme in its own powers, then there would be no such thing as state sovereignty. There would be no need for state constitutions or criminal statutes or civil codes. There would, in effect, be no need of separate states. And we would have long ago dissolved them and become one State, with unlimited power.

That, BTW, is the Progressive ideal.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Founders didn't restrict the states by the 2nd Amendment. States had their own constitutions which applied to and were supported by their citizens. So, whatever gun control the states wanted to apply would have to be decided by permission of their citizens. So, if the board of governors of the university wanted to disallow guns on campus, Jefferson and Madison would have thought they had the right to do so, any objections they might have had notwithstanding. If you think that meant that Madison and Jefferson also meant the federal government could also control private ownership of guns, you are wrong. Such a notion is not, as you put it, well within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

If one could construe that any state action would somehow be evidence that the federal government had the same power, and that the federal government was supreme in its own powers, then there would be no such thing as state sovereignty. There would be no need for state constitutions or criminal statutes or civil codes. There would, in effect, be no need of separate states. And we would have long ago dissolved them and become one State, with unlimited power.

That, BTW, is the Progressive ideal.

OK, I agree with you that the supremacy clause limits the areas in which federal law trumps state law, to those powers enumerated in the constitution. But it would seem that gun rights and restrictions fall into that category, as some state gun restrictions have been struck down as being unconstitutional, as prescribed in the US constitution.

In this well-known case, the DC gun ban was determined by a federal judge, to be contrary to the US Constitution, and therefore invalid. Therefore, when states enact gun restrictions, those restrictions must pass constitutional muster.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...itutional.html

So if states want to ban things like bump stocks or high capacity magazines, that's not necessarily unconstitutional for states to do that...just as it wasn't unconstitutional for VA to declare that guns weren't allowed on campus. That's all I'm saying, all I am doing is responding to those who say that any restrictions on guns, are unconstitutional.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, I agree with you that the supremacy clause limits the areas in which federal law trumps state law, to those powers enumerated in the constitution. But it would seem that gun rights and restrictions fall into that category, as some state gun restrictions have been struck down as being unconstitutional, as prescribed in the US constitution.

In this well-known case, the DC gun ban was determined by a federal judge, to be contrary to the US Constitution, and therefore invalid. Therefore, when states enact gun restrictions, those restrictions must pass constitutional muster.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...itutional.html

So if states want to ban things like bump stocks or high capacity magazines, that's not necessarily unconstitutional for states to do that...just as it wasn't unconstitutional for VA to declare that guns weren't allowed on campus. That's all I'm saying, all I am doing is responding to those who say that any restrictions on guns, are unconstitutional.

OK. We seem to be getting somewhere. There's farther to go and I'm too tired to go there at this moment. I think ScottW is getting there with his posts. You and he might arrive at the sweet spot in the debate. But, at the least, if you're shifting away from the federal government's attempt at gun control, then we're getting somewhere. Now you can campaign for Connecticut gun control, and quit jumping on the bandwagon for federal control.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

OK. We seem to be getting somewhere. There's farther to go and I'm too tired to go there at this moment. I think ScottW is getting there with his posts. You and he might arrive at the sweet spot in the debate. But, at the least, if you're shifting away from the federal government's attempt at gun control, then we're getting somewhere. Now you can campaign for Connecticut gun control, and quit jumping on the bandwagon for federal control.

I guess I assume some understanding of limits of federal power and States rights...and you guys were doing a fine job trying to e'splain....I'm bothered by the characterization of individual Rights/Freedoms as something that can be preemptively limited by or lost to government whim for higher purposes

Connecticut has a lot of "restrictions" already

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

.I'm bothered by the characterization of individual Rights/Freedoms as something that can be preemptively limited by or lost to government whim for higher purposes

You can be bothered by it, of course. The founding fathers apparently were not, or they would not have banned possession of firearms on the VA campus. Some of the same guys who wrote the Constitution, implemented that ban. Tells me that they were OK with the constitutionality of that ban.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

You can be bothered by it, of course. The founding fathers apparently were not, or they would not have banned possession of firearms on the VA campus. Some of the same guys who wrote the Constitution, implemented that ban. Tells me that they were OK with the constitutionality of that ban.

if you write that one more time I am going to punch you...and that's a threat!

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

In this well-known case, the DC gun ban was determined by a federal judge, to be contrary to the US Constitution, and therefore invalid. Therefore, when states enact gun restrictions, those restrictions must pass constitutional muster.

DC is not a state. The city council owes its charter to and exercises power with the blessing of Congress thus DC is entirely bound by the US Constitution; it is not afforded any protections or exceptions that autonomous state governments are.

Heller v DC struck down DC's handgun ban in 2008; this recent case (that your link discusses) was challenging DC's standards for issuing carry permits. DC lost at the district level in 2014, lost again at the circuit level and earlier this month (Oct) has chosen not to challenge the ruling to SCOTUS (as it did with Heller, much to the consternation of the left). DC has been served with the court's mandate and now must issue a carry permit to any law-abiding citizen of the USA.

As for state laws being struck by the Supreme Court as federally unconstitutional, the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban in 2010, two years after Heller. That case was McDonald v Chicago. and the Court enforced the 2nd by incorporating it under the 14th Amendment.

McDonald was the very first time that a state / local gun law was invalidated as a violation of the right secured by the 2nd Amendment. Again, for like the 5th time, until 2010 the 2nd Amendment had zero effect or impact on state or local law.

The effect of McDonald has been stalled for the time being; there are a few cases challenging state assault weapon bans in the pipeline, it might be a year or more before the Court accepts one of those cases.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So if states want to ban things like bump stocks or high capacity magazines, that's not necessarily unconstitutional for states to do that...just as it wasn't unconstitutional for VA to declare that guns weren't allowed on campus.

Your equivalency is still incorrect; the reason why a 2017 state law on bump stocks might pass federal constitutional muster has nothing to do with why the 1830's Univ. of Virginia gun prohibition did not violate the federal right to keep and bear arms.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's all I'm saying, all I am doing is responding to those who say that any restrictions on guns, are unconstitutional.

But you are not making a legal argument, you are making an emotional one that is divorced from any legal reasoning or legal precedent. That's fine to do, but stop couching your theory in constitutional law.

.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

DC is not a state. The city council owes its charter to and exercises power with the blessing of Congress thus DC is entirely bound by the US Constitution; it is not afforded any protections or exceptions that autonomous state governments are.

Heller v DC struck down DC's handgun ban in 2008; this recent case (that your link discusses) was challenging DC's standards for issuing carry permits. DC lost at the district level in 2014, lost again at the circuit level and earlier this month (Oct) has chosen not to challenge the ruling to SCOTUS (as it did with Heller, much to the consternation of the left). DC has been served with the court's mandate and now must issue a carry permit to any law-abiding citizen of the USA.

As for state laws being struck by the Supreme Court as federally unconstitutional, the Supreme Court struck down Chicago's handgun ban in 2010, two years after Heller. That case was McDonald v Chicago. and the Court enforced the 2nd by incorporating it under the 14th Amendment.

McDonald was the very first time that a state / local gun law was invalidated as a violation of the right secured by the 2nd Amendment. Again, for like the 5th time, until 2010 the 2nd Amendment had zero effect or impact on state or local law.

The effect of McDonald has been stalled for the time being; there are a few cases challenging state assault weapon bans in the pipeline, it might be a year or more before the Court accepts one of those cases.



Your equivalency is still incorrect; the reason why a 2017 state law on bump stocks might pass federal constitutional muster has nothing to do with why the 1830's Univ. of Virginia gun prohibition did not violate the federal right to keep and bear arms.




But you are not making a legal argument, you are making an emotional one that is divorced from any legal reasoning or legal precedent. That's fine to do, but stop couching your theory in constitutional law.

.

The federal judge that struck down the DC, referred to the jurisdiction as a state.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The federal judge that struck down the DC, referred to the jurisdiction as a state.

To spare spence's attention span I'll just follow his lead and say you are wrong.