NV Reciprocity Improving Soon: UT CFP Go; IN Larry No-Go....

[actaeon277]

No, the Constitution has always dealt with both the federal government and the several states. The constitution enumerates certain authority to the federal government, and constrains certain authority of the states. The second amendment was written using specific language, for a specific reason. If the founders had intended for the federal government not to infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms, they would have used phrasing similar to the first amendment, such as, "Congress shall make no law infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms."

Insofar as the obvious, absolute intent of the second amendment was unclear or improperly interpreted, it has already been incorporated, long ago, through the fourteenth amendment. So, in our current state, the second amendment is absolute, and constrains not only the federal government, but also the several states.

If that were true, then we wouldn't have States making gun law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Originally, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were only dealing with the Federal Gov.
In criminal cases brought before the State, you couldn't claim the 5th, unless that state had it in their Constitution.
It's only been over time that the Bill of Rights and amendments has been extended to the States, and then only some.

THIS

 

[chipbennett]

If that were true, then we wouldn't have States making gun law.

We have that not because it is constitutional, but because of unconstitutional Judicial Review, per Marbury v. Madison. The Supremes get to find penumbras and emanations, while ignoring the plain meaning of the words in the constitution.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Chip seems to me to be correct in that the 10A specifically identifies the powers of the federal government and then says that those powers it does not have that are also prohibited to the states belong to the people, individually.

"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."

That is, *I* have the right (under the 9A) to restrict possession of firearms on property *I* own, as does anyone on property they own, but we, the People (captial intentional) of Indiana or for that matter, the People of Indianapolis/Bloomington/Ft. Wayne/Terre Haute/Lafayette/wherever do not have a collective power to do so in a place that is collectively owned, such as a city/county/state/whatever. (I personally believe that accompanying that right is the responsibility for one's guests to provide for their safety and security if I do exercise that right, but that is not a Constitutional precept.) The power to restrict the RKBA is "not delegated to the (government of) the United States) and is specifically prohibited to the states and all, by the language,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 1A was specific "Congress shall make no law..." (and would that they would have stopped at those five words!) The 2A has no such specificity.

Logically and linguistically, the 2A makes it clear that no one has the power to infringe upon the RKBA. Individuals have the right to do so, but only on their own property.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[actaeon277]

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments.

Chip seems to me to be correct in that the 10A specifically identifies the powers of the federal government and then says that those powers it does not have that are also prohibited to the states belong to the people, individually.

"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."

That is, *I* have the right (under the 9A) to restrict possession of firearms on property *I* own, as does anyone on property they own, but we, the People (captial intentional) of Indiana or for that matter, the People of Indianapolis/Bloomington/Ft. Wayne/Terre Haute/Lafayette/wherever do not have a collective power to do so in a place that is collectively owned, such as a city/county/state/whatever. (I personally believe that accompanying that right is the responsibility for one's guests to provide for their safety and security if I do exercise that right, but that is not a Constitutional precept.) The power to restrict the RKBA is "not delegated to the (government of) the United States) and is specifically prohibited to the states and all, by the language,

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 1A was specific "Congress shall make no law..." (and would that they would have stopped at those five words!) The 2A has no such specificity.

Logically and linguistically, the 2A makes it clear that no one has the power to infringe upon the RKBA. Individuals have the right to do so, but only on their own property.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[chipbennett]

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments.

The second amendment is incorporated against the states under the fourteenth amendment. McDonald v Chicago (2010) trumps Barron v Baltimore (1833).

The Supremes have been wrong before, and they'll be wrong again. The wording of the constitution is plain and unambiguous. Oh, and again: it was the Supremes who usurped extra-constitutional authority of "judicial review", thereby allowing themselves to (re)interpret the plain and unambiguous wording of the constitution.

 

[actaeon277]

The second amendment is incorporated against the states under the fourteenth amendment. McDonald v Chicago (2010) trumps Barron v Baltimore (1833).

The Supremes have been wrong before, and they'll be wrong again. The wording of the constitution is plain and unambiguous. Oh, and again: it was the Supremes who usurped extra-constitutional authority of "judicial review", thereby allowing themselves to (re)interpret the plain and unambiguous wording of the constitution.

If you look back, I stated that the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States, on Federal cases.
The 14th amendment was not "originally" there, it came later. Therefore, my statement is correct.

And the 14th amendment when it was ratified, did not incorporate ALL of the Bill of Rights, on some.

 

[chipbennett]

If you look back, I stated that the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not originally apply to the States, on Federal cases.
The 14th amendment was not "originally" there, it came later. Therefore, my statement is correct.

And the 14th amendment when it was ratified, did not incorporate ALL of the Bill of Rights, on some.

If the Supremes hadn't mis-interpreted the constitution in the first place, would the fourteenth amendment have been necessary? And I cited the SCOTUS decision that explicitly incorporated the second amendment against the states: McDonald v Chicago (2010).

So, if the plain reading of the constitution wasn't sufficient, and the fourteenth amendment wasn't sufficient, we now have explicit case law that applies the second amendment to the several states.

Shall not be infringed is and always has been absolute and universal, whether or not the courts recognize it as such. The purpose of the second amendment should make that point abundantly clear - especially considering that, under the constitution, we are a federation of sovereign States - a single union, comprised of several sovereign States. Any risk of State tyranny would have been understood to come first and primarily from one of the several States, the authority of the federal government having been strictly limited by the constitution.

 

[cosermann]

The Founders, I thought were quite clear in the powers they allowed the federal govt to have, and what rights they reserved for the state's. Now we have those that want to flip flop between interpretation and eras so it justifies their position.

I think it's the spirit of the Constitution's full faith and credit clause that is being invoked, although that clause has historically been applied inconsistently imo.

 

[opus1776]

Update!!!!!

I need to interupt the in this thread....



On June 2nd the NV signed SB 175 into law. The bill became effective on June 2nd. There should be a new updated list by July 1st. When I get the list I'll post it in this thread.


Now back to the .








======================================
"Nothing tastes as good as skinny feels" K. Moss
You can NEVER be too rich or too thin.
Life is not a journey, but a series of unplanned detours...
Perfection: is not a goal---it's a demanded expectation.

 

[rhino]

I need to interupt the View attachment 38948 in this thread....

Okay, Doc. That is FUNNY.

Thanks for the update too!

 

[Bill of Rights]

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution's Bill of Rights restricts only the powers of the federal government and not those of the state governments.

I realize you didn't write this decision, but how is this interpretation even possible when the 10A includes the phrase, "...not prohibited by it to the states..."? In light of that question, again, the 2A specifies that because "a well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State", thus that enumerated right "shall not be infringed", a phrase found nowhere else in the document.

And anyway, Barron was 1833, and the 14A was 1868. (I'm not a huge fan of 14A reliance.)

One must wonder if they were reading the same document we are, absent, of course, changes that have occurred in the interim.

ETA: I just read the wiki on Barron, and while yes, it does say that the Constitution applies only to the fed unless a power is specifically denied to the states, as was pointed out here, that's precisely what McDonald does. Thus, on this issue, at least, Barron is a dead letter.

 

[actaeon277]

I realize you didn't write this decision, but how is this interpretation even possible when the 10A includes the phrase, "...not prohibited by it to the states..."? In light of that question, again, the 2A specifies that because "a well-regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free State", thus that enumerated right "shall not be infringed", a phrase found nowhere else in the document.

And anyway, Barron was 1833, and the 14A was 1868. (I'm not a huge fan of 14A reliance.)

One must wonder if they were reading the same document we are, absent, of course, changes that have occurred in the interim.

ETA: I just read the wiki on Barron, and while yes, it does say that the Constitution applies only to the fed unless a power is specifically denied to the states, as was pointed out here, that's precisely what McDonald does. Thus, on this issue, at least, Barron is a dead letter.

My statement was referencing a discussion about history, beginning of the country stuff. McDonald didn't come out till recently.
I made no claim on recent history, such as Post-McDonald.

 

[rhino]

Constitution? PHOOEY!

 

[Bill of Rights]

My statement was referencing a discussion about history, beginning of the country stuff. McDonald didn't come out till recently.
I made no claim on recent history, such as Post-McDonald.

That explains the discrepancy, then. I was discussing the unchanged meaning of the 10A, 2A, etc., and noting the fact that, though ignored by those in power, that document was written to restrict the government created of, by, and for the People, not the People, who they somehow believe exist to serve government. I'm still at a loss as to how the clear text of the 10A and 2A can somehow be taken to say that the power to infringe upon the RKBA, clearly denied to the fed gov, can be taken to not be prohibited by the text of the 2A to the States.

"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."


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Again, I know you didn't write the Barron decision, but for the sake of discussion, let's run through the text:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" (Nowhere is the power to restrict the RKBA so delegated)
"nor prohibited by it to the States" (the 2A does state that the right shall not be infringed. Period.)
"are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." (that power IS denied to the States, thus it logically and explicitly devolves to the People.)

How can anyone read that and deny that that specific power has been categorically denied to government? and yet, we allow them to continue to violate that document unhindered and with impunity.

The simple fact is that the fault for the state of affairs in which we find ourselves embroiled is our own fault. Not personally, not directly, at least not at the beginning. No one who voted for GCA 1968 is still alive, let alone NFA 1934. We continue to allow these unConstitutional laws to exist and we do nothing to the legislators who support them and attempt to pass more. We continue to re-elect these oathbreakers, who prove day after day that they can't even be trusted to tell the truth, something expected of even four-year-olds.

The difference is that the four-year-old can expect to be punished if s/he is caught in a lie, while the legislator can expect to be rewarded. It's bad when our elected representatives have less self-control and self-discipline than a preschooler.


I guess Mr. Reagan was correct: "Government is like a big baby - an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other."

Blessings,
Bill

 

[caverjamie]

The new reciprocity just became effective, link below. I didn't know about this until today, hah! Good news, since I have a UT permit. Still won't recognize Indiana though. Now if only CA would stop being such jerks about self defense...

CCW-Permit-Recognition

 

[rugertoter]

The new reciprocity just became effective, link below. I didn't know about this until today, hah! Good news, since I have a UT permit. Still won't recognize Indiana though. Now if only CA would stop being such jerks about self defense...

CCW-Permit-Recognition

Yup, I got the Utah too...good thing too, noticed they left Indiana out.

 

[Dead Duck]

Yup, I got the Utah too...good thing too, noticed they left Indiana out.

Same here but do they honor us as Non-Resident Utah License Holders because some states (from what I've been told) don't.

 

[rhino]

Arizona is good in Nevada again too.

 

[shibumiseeker]

The new reciprocity just became effective, link below. I didn't know about this until today, hah! Good news, since I have a UT permit. Still won't recognize Indiana though. Now if only CA would stop being such jerks about self defense...

CCW-Permit-Recognition

Just in time for Convention!