Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 04-20-2009, 11:18 AM   #1 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
2nd Amendment incorporated against the states via the 14th Amendment

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...20/0715763.pdf

Quote:
We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” Colonial revolutionaries, the Founders, and a host of commentators and lawmakers living during the first one hundred years of the Republic all insisted on the fundamental nature of the right. It has long been regarded as the “true palladium of liberty.” Colonists relied on it to assert and to win their independence, and the victorious Union sought to prevent a recalcitrant South from abridging it less than a century later. The crucial role this deeply rooted right has played in our birth and history compels us to recognize that it is indeed fundamental, that it is necessary to the Anglo-American conception of ordered liberty that we have inherited. We are therefore persuaded that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment and applies it against the states and local governments.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 11:32 AM   #2 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
While it kinda falls in line with the original intent of the Second Amendment, doesn't it strike you as bad idea to essentially legalize armed insurrection based simply on the whim of the individual (or am I reading this wrong)?

While I would agree that some people have the necessary critical thinking skills to recognize when armed insurrection is necessary, what about your Tim McVeighs? He believed that he was fighting to stop what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge, but in doing so became one of the most infamous domestic terrorists in American history. While you do have problems with the federal government, I know that you'd never condone something like the Murrah Building Bombing (or an equivalent attack with guns).
Willravel is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 11:44 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
While it kinda falls in line with the original intent of the Second Amendment, doesn't it strike you as bad idea to essentially legalize armed insurrection based simply on the whim of the individual (or am I reading this wrong)?
I'm guessing you're reading it wrong, though some of the judges on this circuit bench (and the 5th) have accepted and acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment is necessary so that the people maintain soveriegnty over the government, their explanation of it in this decision is just dicta.

What this decision does is force 9th circuit states in line with Heller at a minimum. This will probably invalidate Californias 'approved' handgun list and might also invalidate the roberti-roos act eventually, or at least part of it. Future USSC decisions on the 2nd will also be forced upon the states in the 9th. This will also mean that hawaii MUST allow citizens to have handguns in the home for personal protection, something that they were barely allowed before.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 11:50 AM   #4 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
So does this basically make all the federal firearm laws mandatory for state level and the states can't make any more strict laws than the feds? So California won't be able to limit magazine capcities and other states will have to issue ccws?

I guess I'm confused.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 11:55 AM   #5 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Oh, good. I figured I'd misread it.

So what you're advocating is to strip states of the right to make rulings on guns in favor of a national standard of some kind? Not to turn your own ideology around on you, but what's the harm in allowing states to make decisions regarding gun laws? Besides, California has less than 10 gun deaths per 100,000 people and Hawaii less than 3. Compare that to gun-free Alaska at 20 per 100,000 and Wyoming at 18.8. If we've found something that works for us, what's the harm in allowing us to continue?
Willravel is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 12:02 PM   #6 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol View Post
So does this basically make all the federal firearm laws mandatory for state level and the states can't make any more strict laws than the feds? So California won't be able to limit magazine capcities and other states will have to issue ccws?

I guess I'm confused.
giong by the strict application of heller, this ruling will preclude any state or municipality in the 9th from denying a homeowner to have a gun in the home. future rulings will dictate other things later.

this should clear the way to invalidate the approved handgun list, eventually the ban on high cap mags, part or all of the roberti-roos act, and the unloaded open carry law in Cali. Other laws which stand a good chance of being knocked down now will be chicagos handgun ban, new yorks outrageous license and purchase permits, and turn may issue states in to shall issue states.

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Oh, good. I figured I'd misread it.

So what you're advocating is to strip states of the right to make rulings on guns in favor of a national standard of some kind? Not to turn your own ideology around on you, but what's the harm in allowing states to make decisions regarding gun laws? Besides, California has less than 10 gun deaths per 100,000 people and Hawaii less than 3. Compare that to gun-free Alaska at 20 per 100,000 and Wyoming at 18.8. If we've found something that works for us, what's the harm in allowing us to continue?
Is the 2nd Amendment an individual right protected by the US constitution? why would we not enforce the constitution against every state that asked for admission in to the union? or were you a big fan of selective incorporation as it started out?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 12:08 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
Oh, good. I figured I'd misread it.

So what you're advocating is to strip states of the right to make rulings on guns in favor of a national standard of some kind? Not to turn your own ideology around on you, but what's the harm in allowing states to make decisions regarding gun laws? Besides, California has less than 10 gun deaths per 100,000 people and Hawaii less than 3. Compare that to gun-free Alaska at 20 per 100,000 and Wyoming at 18.8. If we've found something that works for us, what's the harm in allowing us to continue?
Is that just devil advocate? Because I'm pretty sure I've brought up the idea of different states having seperate policies for things like health care, gay marriade, social welfare programs instead of broad stroke federal laws. The difference is I guess that the definition of the 2nd amendment makes it nationwide IMO, where as the others aren't expresslly delegated to federal government thus reserving them to the states.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 12:15 PM   #8 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol View Post
Is that just devil advocate? Because I'm pretty sure I've brought up the idea of different states having seperate policies for things like health care, gay marriade, social welfare programs instead of broad stroke federal laws. The difference is I guess that the definition of the 2nd amendment makes it nationwide IMO, where as the others aren't expresslly delegated to federal government thus reserving them to the states.
Rights granted by the federal government cannot be superseded by state governments. Just as the 1st Amendment federally guarantees freedom of speech that the state cannot impede upon, so does the 2nd grant an individual right to bear arms that the state cannot impede on.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 12:44 PM   #9 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth View Post
Is the 2nd Amendment an individual right protected by the US constitution? why would we not enforce the constitution against every state that asked for admission in to the union? or were you a big fan of selective incorporation as it started out?
If I remember correctly, you were not happy with the outcome of DC v. Heller because Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment has limits:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalia, District of Columbia v. Heller
[L]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
The decision essentially provided precedent that establishes that while gun bans and trigger locks are unconstitutional, gun control laws are not necessarily. Based on this decision, your argument that gun control is unconstitutional is unfounded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol View Post
Is that just devil advocate? Because I'm pretty sure I've brought up the idea of different states having seperate policies for things like health care, gay marriade, social welfare programs instead of broad stroke federal laws. The difference is I guess that the definition of the 2nd amendment makes it nationwide IMO, where as the others aren't expresslly delegated to federal government thus reserving them to the states.
I'm okay with state level health care, gay marriage, and social welfare, though there's less administrative costs for them when they're federal.

I'm half playing devil's advocate. While I don't buy into the "everything should be run at a state level" libertarian/conservative ideology, I do have a problem with having no gun control and I'll fight it with whatever ideological argument is handy. I want gun control laws in California.
Willravel is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 12:51 PM   #10 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel View Post
If I remember correctly, you were not happy with the outcome of DC v. Heller because Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment has limits:

The decision essentially provided precedent that establishes that while gun bans and trigger locks are unconstitutional, gun control laws are not necessarily. Based on this decision, your argument that gun control is unconstitutional is unfounded.
I was unhappy with Scalias decision because it did not cover what level of scrutiny the 2nd Amendment is protected by. Of course I think gun control laws the prohibit or infringe the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, but that was a sidepoint of the Heller decision with me.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 12:52 PM   #11 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
And this is why we ask the OP to frame the discussion, so we don't have to spend 5 posts figuring out the intent of the first post.

/grumpy staffer

I don't think that the 2nd mentions individuals at all.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 01:36 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
And this is why we ask the OP to frame the discussion, so we don't have to spend 5 posts figuring out the intent of the first post.

/grumpy staffer

I don't think that the 2nd mentions individuals at all.
what does it mention then?
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 01:51 PM   #13 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
It says that the Federal Government can't infringe on the ability of the States to keep and maintain a militia, in my opinion. But that's an argument you and I have talked over for years, DK. It specifically mentions "The People", but that's not a term that used elsewhere in the Constitution and one that's never really been defined.

And that you need to actually ask questions and not post links in your original posts so that we know what the hell you want to talk about.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 02:00 PM   #14 (permalink)
Who You Crappin?
 
Derwood's Avatar
 
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Can we just sticky a "gun thread" please?
Derwood is offline  
Old 04-20-2009, 02:43 PM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
It says that the Federal Government can't infringe on the ability of the States to keep and maintain a militia, in my opinion. But that's an argument you and I have talked over for years, DK. It specifically mentions "The People", but that's not a term that used elsewhere in the Constitution and one that's never really been defined.

And that you need to actually ask questions and not post links in your original posts so that we know what the hell you want to talk about.
'The right of the people' occurs in the 1st 2nd and 4th amendment, and it is widely accepted that these are individual rights in the 1st and 4th.

Also the Bill of Rights wasn't designed to deny rights to anyone. It was created to acknowledge basic rights that already existed. Even if you think the 2nd refers to 'militia' only, the 9th amendment makes it real clear.

Quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You and many others are clearly using the 2nd amendment to deny the right to bear arms to 'the people'.
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
Old 04-21-2009, 11:04 AM   #16 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazz
It says that the Federal Government can't infringe on the ability of the States to keep and maintain a militia, in my opinion. But that's an argument you and I have talked over for years, DK. It specifically mentions "The People", but that's not a term that used elsewhere in the Constitution and one that's never really been defined.
In believing it is not an individual right, you not only disagree with dk, but with the highest court in the United States, who asserted that it was, indeed, an individual right.

Until that decision is reversed or superseded, it is precedent at worst and law at best that "the right to bear arms" is an individual right, independent of any sort of membership in a militia.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 04-21-2009, 11:32 AM   #17 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
It says that the Federal Government can't infringe on the ability of the States to keep and maintain a militia, in my opinion. But that's an argument you and I have talked over for years, DK. It specifically mentions "The People", but that's not a term that used elsewhere in the Constitution and one that's never really been defined.

And that you need to actually ask questions and not post links in your original posts so that we know what the hell you want to talk about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn View Post
In believing it is not an individual right, you not only disagree with dk, but with the highest court in the United States, who asserted that it was, indeed, an individual right.

Until that decision is reversed or superseded, it is precedent at worst and law at best that "the right to bear arms" is an individual right, independent of any sort of membership in a militia.

The operative caveat is highlighted there for you, big guy. And before any one of you get any further up on your high horse, remind me the exact date that I personally showed up on your doorstep to take away your guns. Or, alternatively, any one single post that I've ever made here denying your right to own guns. I gave my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - absolutely nothing more. I'm fully aware of what the real-world interpretation is, and if you don't like my opinion that's admittedly not based in reality, too fucking bad.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 04-21-2009, 11:50 AM   #18 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
The operative caveat is highlighted there for you, big guy. And before any one of you get any further up on your high horse, remind me the exact date that I personally showed up on your doorstep to take away your guns. Or, alternatively, any one single post that I've ever made here denying your right to own guns. I gave my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment - absolutely nothing more. I'm fully aware of what the real-world interpretation is, and if you don't like my opinion that's admittedly not based in reality, too fucking bad.
<3

I never suggested you shouldn't have an opinion, only that your opinion disagrees with current legal opinion. Depending how you take that, it could even be a compliment.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 04-21-2009, 02:14 PM   #19 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: bedford, tx
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
It says that the Federal Government can't infringe on the ability of the States to keep and maintain a militia, in my opinion. But that's an argument you and I have talked over for years, DK. It specifically mentions "The People", but that's not a term that used elsewhere in the Constitution and one that's never really been defined.
We the people of the United States, (preamble)

Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States")

the right of the people peaceably to assemble (1st Amendment)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,(4th Amendment)

shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.(9th Amendment)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.(10th Amendment)

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

Quote:
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
And just to further persuade you that your opinion might be inaccurate,

Quote:
Art. 1, Section 10, Clause 3 (Compact Clause): No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
This may, or may not, change your opinion, and if it does not, I would urge you to examine your opinion to see if that's really an opinion on your straight reading of the text of the 2nd Amendment or nothing more than your desire to see it read that way.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
dksuddeth is offline  
Old 04-21-2009, 02:24 PM   #20 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth View Post
This may, or may not, change your opinion, and if it does not, I would urge you to examine your opinion to see if that's really an opinion on your straight reading of the text of the 2nd Amendment or nothing more than your desire to see it read that way.
Exactly, I don't have a problem with someone having the opinion that guns should be banned. However, the glaring inaccuracies that he said to base his opinions off of just made his stance sound foolish. Which is why he came back with an over the top stern reply while everyone else was calmly discusisng facts. Sad really
__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.
samcol is offline  
 

Tags
14th, 2nd, amendment, incorporated, states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:20 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360