A compromise

[jamesrage]

its a really interesting question, isn't it? and why it took the 14 amendment incorporation to do that is a really good subject for a law review article or to gain someone tenure as a constitutional professor at some major league law school

Because activist judges decades 35 years before made up a load of horse manure and said the bill of rights did not apply to the states(judges making up **** that doesn't exist in the Constitution wasn't something just recent). At the same time southern states just like what modern anti-2nd amendment states are doing today were looking for loopholes in order to infringe on the rights of black Americans.Which is why they had to come up with the 14th amendment to make them citizens with rights and 15th amendment to wipe away the grandfather clause that many states tried to impose on black Americans.

 

[jamesrage]

I see you believe you know better than the people actually alive at the time.

Can you show me where in the bill of rights that it says it only applies to the states? Or even a quote by it's author stating that the bill of rights only applies to the states? The answer to those questions is no.Which means those judges made **** up that was not in the bill of rights.

 

[Paleocon]

Can you show me where in the bill of rights that it says it only applies to the states? Or even a quote by it's author stating that the bill of rights only applies to the states? The answer to those questions is no.Which means those judges made **** up that was not in the bill of rights.

As the court said, it could find nothing indicating that the BoR was meant to apply to the states.

It would have been activism to apply it.

 

[jamesrage]

As the court said, it could find nothing indicating that the BoR was meant to apply to the states.

It would have been activism to apply it.

Nor can you find anything in the bill of rights saying that the bill of rights only applies to the federal government. So those activist judges made **** up.It would be like someone saying no one never said you molested kids so then you must have molested kids even though there is no evidence of you molesting kids.

 

[Paleocon]

Nor can you find anything in the bill of rights saying that the bill of rights only applies to the federal government. So those activist judges made **** up.It would be like someone saying no one never said you molested kids so then you must have molested kids even though there is no evidence of you molesting kids.

Your lack of understanding does not affect reality.

 

[Eric7216]

Wouldn't that be a violation of the 14th Amendment? Part of it states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

If I am a citizen of Texas and they authorized me to own a firearm and I travel to New York with my firearm, which the Federal Law supports, New York, I would think, should not be allowed to arrest me. Or maybe it is someplace else that states should honor licenses of other states, such as driver's licenses or marriage licenses. Not sure why this is not allowed currently.

 

[jet57]

Because activist judges decades 35 years before made up a load of horse manure and said the bill of rights did not apply to the states(judges making up **** that doesn't exist in the Constitution wasn't something just recent). At the same time southern states just like what modern anti-2nd amendment states are doing today were looking for loopholes in order to infringe on the rights of black Americans.Which is why they had to come up with the 14th amendment to make them citizens with rights and 15th amendment to wipe away the grandfather clause that many states tried to impose on black Americans.

The decision on the Bill of Rights was by the Supreme Court Baron VS Baltimore, 1833, NOT activist judges and as Far as I know, it still stands.

 

[TurtleDude]

The decision on the Bill of Rights was by the Supreme Court Baron VS Baltimore, 1833, NOT activist judges and as Far as I know, it still stands.

You are sort of right and mostly wrong. from wiki-this is an accurate interpretation of the state of the law

Later Supreme Court rulings would return to Barron to reaffirm its central holding, most notably United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876). However, beginning in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has used the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (interpreted, however, to have the same meaning as the 5th amendment) to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progeny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.

 

[jet57]

Baron VS Baltimore still stands.

 

[TurtleDude]

Baron VS Baltimore still stands.

and yet it has been side stepped by the 14th amendment incorporation. If it was still in power, McDonald V. Chicago would not have been issued

 

[blackjack50]

The absolute worst thing you could do is start to compromise on gun control. That opens the door to the standard Liberal tactic of incrementalism. No compromise, ever. The Second Amendment is very clear and has never been more necessary than it is right now.

The liberals believe in compromise...they want you to compromise on your position until you are at their position.

I have one simple suggestion that would work just fine that I heard from someone on this website: put a mark on people's license if they can't purchase a gun. Problem solved. You punish the criminals and have no need for background checks.

 

[Paleocon]

Wouldn't that be a violation of the 14th Amendment? Part of it states:


If I am a citizen of Texas and they authorized me to own a firearm and I travel to New York with my firearm, which the Federal Law supports, New York, I would think, should not be allowed to arrest me. Or maybe it is someplace else that states should honor licenses of other states, such as driver's licenses or marriage licenses. Not sure why this is not allowed currently.

Full Faith and credit doesn't apply to licenses. Driver licenses are recognized interstate by state law, not constitutional mandate. And marriage licenses aren't. If you get a marriage license in Arkansas, you can only use it to get married in Arkansas. The marriage itself, is valid interstate, but a firearm permit is analogous to the marriage license, not to the marriage itself.

 

[Jerry]

Anti gin-control is willing to compromise on many fronts. If you want mandatory training, fine. If you want fingerprinting, photo ID, and background checks at the point-of-sale, fine.

But in compromise, any state's carry permit is valid in every other state. Carry is legal everywhere, even schools, provided you have a valid permit. Owning/carrying a modern machine gun legal across the US.

That's what a practical, workable compromise looks like.

 

[imagep]

Here's something I thought of, would this be an acceptable compromise on the gun issue:

1. No new federal gun regulations
2. Federal courts can't overturn state gun control laws

Under this, states that wanted gun control could have it, and those that didn't could not have it.

I see there being three options. Two of which are probably unacceptible to almost everyone, liberal or conservative:

1) We have absolutely no gun reguations, and nine year olds would be able to purchase guns without adult supervision anywhere from anyone.

2) We have a total gun ban, not allowing anyone to have them other than the military.

3) We have reasonable gun control.

Option 3 is the only logical option.

 

[TurtleDude]

I see there being three options. Two of which are probably unacceptible to almost everyone, liberal or conservative:

1) We have absolutely no gun reguations, and nine year olds would be able to purchase guns without adult supervision anywhere from anyone.

2) We have a total gun ban, not allowing anyone to have them other than the military.

3) We have reasonable gun control.

Option 3 is the only logical option.

what is REASONABLE GUN CONTROL? half the laws we have are already UNREASONABLE

 

[jamesrage]

Your lack of understanding does not affect reality.

There is reality there is nothing in the bill of rights saying it only applies to the federal government.Nor is there a quote by Madison saying the bill of rights only applies to the federal government.

 

[jamesrage]

The decision on the Bill of Rights was by the Supreme Court Baron VS Baltimore, 1833, NOT activist judges and as Far as I know, it still stands.

The bill of rights makes no mention of it only applying to the federal government, nor is the a quote by the author of the bill rights saying it only applies to the federal government. So yes those were activist judges for making **** up in order to suite their own agenda.

 

[Paleocon]

There is reality there is nothing in the bill of rights saying it only applies to the federal government.Nor is there a quote by Madison saying the bill of rights only applies to the federal government.

As I said, the people around then understood the constitution better than you.

 

[jet57]

The bill of rights makes no mention of it only applying to the federal government, nor is the a quote by the author of the bill rights saying it only applies to the federal government. So yes those were activist judges for making **** up in order to suite their own agenda.

The bill of rights applies to people - not states.... There are no activist judges doing anything.

 

[TurtleDude]

The bill of rights applies to people - not states.... There are no activist judges doing anything.

wrong as usual. the bill of rights is a restriction on government action-first federal and now state

 

[Crimefree]

The bill of rights applies to people - not states.... There are no activist judges doing anything.

The right of the people shall not be infringed simply means nobody may infringe this right. Can you see anywhere in those words something that says except, government, the courts or the States.

I'm not asking for a leap of faith just show me the words that satisfy your claim.

 

[jamesrage]

The bill of rights applies to people

Which means the states should not have been able to infringe on the rights of citizens.

- not states.... There are no activist judges doing anything.

They ruled the bill or rights only applies to the federal government, meaning states were infringe on the rights of the people. The bill of rights made no such distinction between state and federal government nor is there any quote by the BOR author stating that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. By claiming the bill of rights was only a restriction on the federal government they made up something that was no in the BOR nor was it based on the author of the BOH.Therefore they are activist judges.

 

[jamesrage]

As I said, the people around then understood the constitution better than you.

If that is the case then you should be able to show me where in the bill of rights it says that it only applies to the feds or a quote by the author of the bill of rights to support your absurd notion that it only applies to the federal government. Judges back then like the ones today make rulings based on their ideology, not what the constitution actually says.

 

[imagep]

what is REASONABLE GUN CONTROL? half the laws we have are already UNREASONABLE

Defining "Reasonable gun control" seems to be the only issue, not the fact that we should have gun control.

Do you think that ex-cons who committed violent acts should be able to legally purchase guns? What about 12 year old children?

I really think what we have is pretty reasonable. Nothing stops ME from purchasing a gun if I want to, and no gun control laws are are overly burdensome. It's not that difficult for me to get a concealed carry permit, and even without one I can strap a firearm to my side or carry one in my hands any time I want to.

Exactly which gun control laws do you find objectionable, and are those federal laws or are they state/local laws? I generally find that the smaller the unit of government is, the more tyranical it is.

 

[TurtleDude]

Defining "Reasonable gun control" seems to be the only issue, not the fact that we should have gun control.

Do you think that ex-cons who committed violent acts should be able to legally purchase guns? What about 12 year old children?

I really think what we have is pretty reasonable. Nothing stops ME from purchasing a gun if I want to, and no gun control laws are are overly burdensome. It's not that difficult for me to get a concealed carry permit, and even without one I can strap a firearm to my side or carry one in my hands any time I want to.

Exactly which gun control laws do you find objectionable, and are those federal laws or are they state/local laws? I generally find that the smaller the unit of government is, the more tyranical it is.

reasonable gun control

prohibiting children and those adjudicated dangerous from buying guns

punishing misuse of guns

Unreasonable

magazine restrictions (CT, NY, MD, NJ, California)

"assault weapon" bans (CT, NY, MD, NJ, California)

Machine gun bans (Federal and some states)

Waiting Periods

how many guns a month you can legally buy

extra taxes on guns to pay for gun violence