*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*

[AshburnerX]

Congratulations on your support of requiring picture ID to vote, then. Which, incidentally, is not a right guaranteed by the constitution.

It's not illegal... in theory. However, as the State has repeatedly removed locations for which minorities can obtain IDs and narrowed what is and isn't considered a form of proper identification... and has done so without making a compelling case that this somehow significantly cuts down on voter fraud (when study after study shows voter fraud at the polls isn't even a serious issue), the intent to subvert the voting rights of those minorities is clear, making this a violation of the Voting Rights Act and of the 15th Amendment. All the State needs to do is provide a simple, easy means to acquire said ID with the proper paperwork to these communities and it could avoid this infringement... but because the aim is to restrict voting amongst minorities, it will never happen. If/when this issue reaches the Supreme Court, it is likely the would ether need to overturn the Voting Rights Act or require the state to provide means for these effected communities to acquire the required ID.

This is sort of like the Chicago and New York examples I already mentioned: an infringement is occurring because local governments are taking extraordinary steps to prevent the use of a right. A state does not have the ability to prevent your exercise of a Federal right, unless you are a convicted felon. Thus, this ruling deserves to be overturned at the Supreme Court on the basis that a State/City is doing the job of the Federal government when it shouldn't be able to.

 

[strawman]

There is nothing saying the government can't regulate...

Infringe: Act so as to limit.

Regulate: Control by means of rules and regulations.

If the "regulation" has no limits, then it doesn't infringe. So that's fine, until the government limits who, when, how, where, why, or what a person may carry in regards to arms.

Right now the current gun rules and regulations do provide limits, and thus already infringe, and thus people are fighting to remove some of those limitations, while others work to make sure that no new limitations are enacted.

Requiring a license, or even classes, to own, use, or carry guns limits them.

 

[DarkAudit]

Infringe: Act so as to limit.

Regulate: Control by means of rules and regulations.

If the "regulation" has no limits, then it doesn't infringe. So that's fine, until the government limits who, when, how, where, why, or what a person may carry in regards to arms.

Right now the current gun rules and regulations do provide limits, and thus already infringe, and thus people are fighting to remove some of those limitations, while others work to make sure that no new limitations are enacted.

Requiring a license, or even classes, to own, use, or carry guns limits them.

By those standards, a toddler should have a right to open carry a Glock.

(Full disclosure: I've been up since 8pm last night, and am even less in my right mind than usual.)

 

[PatrThom]

Presumably imposing a "regulation" requiring gun owners to pay one million dollars to obtain a license to own a gun, and then require renewing that license yearly for the same amount, and then repeating that process for each gun individually, while still a "regulation" could justifiably be considered "infringement."
It's certainly a barrier to entry.

--Patrick

 

[Gruebeard]

By those standards, a toddler should have a right to open carry a Glock.

An American toddler, yes. And concealed carry, too.

If you're worried about the kids shooting someone, you write laws that hold accountable the negligent jackass who gave the kid a gun. And you make them strict. Like, Second Degree Murder, strict.

So you have your rights, and you have your legal obligations neatly separated. It's akin to Gassy's suggestion for mandatory gun safety courses in school.

 

[strawman]

California disallows open carry, and disallows concealed carry without a permit.

The legislation disallowed permits except in case of demonstrated need - not just for self defense.

So unless you had an active situation where your life was demonstrably in danger, then you could not ever carry a gun in California in these cities/counties except under very specific purposes - such as transporting an unloaded, locked firearm from home to the gun range and back (and you'd better not stop at a gas station or store along the way).

In other words in these locations you had no rights to carry a gun, effectively making them gun free zones for 95% of the law abiding population.

The judges said, "Yeah, that's allowed" but like the voting cases they didn't look at the effect of the legislation in the environment and under other existing legislation, they simply looked at it as though it alone were the only limitation to gun rights. If this law were created in a state that allowed open carry then they could probably make the case that it's not infringing, but it's not, and they cannot.

As such I will be surprised if even a split 4-4 court decided that this was ok. If it makes it to the supreme court, though, then you'll find it's not going to be decided until next year (maybe this fall at the earliest) and it would be very surprising if the court wasn't full again.

That said, who knows? If the democrats are successful in getting a constitutional reformist activist judge in robes, then I suppose anything is possible, including effectively destroying the second amendment and making possible an even greater police state.

 

[Bubble181]

By those standards, a toddler should have a right to open carry a Glock.

(Full disclosure: I've been up since 8pm last night, and am even less in my right mind than usual.)

Taken to the extreme, that means a toddler has the right to carry around a nuke. *shrug* Americans and their guns, whaddayagonnado.

 

[PatrThom]

Taken to the extreme, that means a toddler has the right to carry around a nuke. *shrug* Americans and their guns, whaddayagonnado.

Inb4 @GasBandit again explains the difference between "arms" and "weapons of mass destruction."

--Patrick

 

[Gruebeard]

I'm looking at a weapon of mass destruction right now.


Wait, I mean a woman of mass distraction.

 

[PatrThom]

I'm looking at a weapon of mass destruction right now.
Wait, I mean a woman of mass distraction.

Does she look like this?

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

Again, you only have a right to keep and bear arms. There is nothing saying the government can't regulate how those arms may be carried in public, tax the ownership of arms, or even decide that all arms must have certain features (like safeties). They just can't keep you from owning arms or carrying them openly in public.

Saying "how" you may or may not carry them is literally infringement. It actively undermines the right to carry (bear) the weapon in the manner you desire.

 

[Gruebeard]

A little, but she's wearing red, her yellow blonde hair's in a ponytail, and her face is more angular. And she's almost certainly taller and skinnier.

But yes, I'm drinking my 5th cup out of a mug with a Starbucks logo. (though I'm not at a Starbucks)

 

[GasBandit]

Taken to the extreme, that means a toddler has the right to carry around a nuke. *shrug* Americans and their guns, whaddayagonnado.

No, it doesn't. The second amendment doesn't mean you can own field artillery, either. A soldier doesn't "carry" a nuke.

 

[strawman]

Ran across an interesting quote on wikipedia in the open carry article:

In 2015, former Florida congressman Allen West opined, regarding the 2015 Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, "Using the same 'due process clause' argument as the Supreme Court just applied to gay marriage, my concealed carry permit must now be recognized as valid in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.“[42] This opinion echoes reasoning contained in an Amicus curiaebrief in Obergefell.[43]

 

[Cog]

Every right to bear arms discussion sounds to me like a religious discussion:

"This thing I like is good because it is written in my book and it is written in my book because it is good."
"The people who wrote your book didn't know how things were going to be"
"The people who wrote my book were wiser than any of us and their words are as true now as they were before"

 

[GasBandit]

Every right to bear arms discussion sounds to me like a religious discussion:

"This thing I like is good because it is written in my book and it is written in my book because it is good."
"The people who wrote your book didn't know how things were going to be"
"The people who wrote my book were wiser than any of us and their words are as true now as they were before"

The book is the law of the land, that is not in dispute. The people who wrote the book put in an approved method for changing the rules in the book - called "amending," which we have done multiple times throughout our history. The problem arises because people who don't agree with what the book says don't have enough popular support to change the book the "right" way so they try to cheat.

 

[strawman]

No, it doesn't. The second amendment doesn't mean you can own field artillery, either. A soldier doesn't "carry" a nuke.

I don't know. A very strong soldier might be able to haul the Davy Crocket nuke around.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-what-it-looks-like-when-the-worlds-smallest-nuk-1684923814

 

[GasBandit]

To be correct, though, a toddler DOES have the legal right to carry a gun. However, giving the toddler the gun probably makes an adult liable for child/reckless endangerment.

 

[PatrThom]

giving the toddler the gun probably makes an adult liable for child/reckless endangerment.

Well, yeah!

--Patrick

 

[Covar]

By those standards, a toddler should have a right to Vote.
,

See guys, It works quite well.

 

[GasBandit]

NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE!

The rules only say that, where there is voting, you can't be prevented from voting based on certain, explicit criteria.

 

[AshburnerX]

Ran across an interesting quote on wikipedia in the open carry article:

I could actually buy this line of thinking... except I'm fairly certain that the license in question states that it only applies for use in the state in which it was issued. Now, if a state was to simply issue concealed carry permits period... well, then the Full Faith and Credit clause would DEFINITELY apply.

It's an interesting and clever idea and I actually agree that having a concealed carry permit in one state should apply to another as well.

 

[Covar]

NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO VOTE!

The rules only say that, where there is voting, you can't be prevented from voting based on certain, explicit criteria.

I know, but many people want to treat it on or higher than a constitutional amendment and I find, particularly when arguing what is and isn't infringement, that comparing to both is a great way to highlight.

 

[blotsfan]

Just another sign that the constitution has flaws that we should take into consideration before treating it like a holy text.

 

[GasBandit]

Just another sign that the constitution has flaws that we should take into consideration before treating it like a holy text.

Or, you know, amend it.

Because obviously if it's SO flawed, then clearly there must be enough political and popular will to amend it.

And not merely to try to do an end run through unconstitutional legislation.[DOUBLEPOST=1465512781,1465512463][/DOUBLEPOST]Example of how changing the constitution works:

AMENDMENT XVIII (1920): "No booze! No booze for anybody! Ever! It's illegal!"
AMENDMENT XXI (1933): "Ha ha disregard that"

It can be done, and it's not that hard, so long as you're not actually trying to force something the vast majority of the country doesn't actually want.

 

[blotsfan]

Or, you know, amend it.

Because obviously if it's SO flawed, then clearly there must be enough political and popular will to amend it.

And not merely to try to do an end run through unconstitutional legislation.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of morons in the US (Trump joke here). I agree that conceptually, you are right in that literally any anti-gun measure is against the constitution. I just don't like people dying so someone can jack off to his rifle.

 

[GasBandit]

Unfortunately, there are a lot of morons in the US (Trump joke here). I agree that conceptually, you are right in that literally any anti-gun measure is against the constitution. I just don't like people dying so someone can jack off to his rifle.

To my knowledge there has been no documented case of someone dying due to someone else using any sort of firearm as a masturbatory aid.

 

[Cajungal]

To my knowledge there has been no documented case of someone dying due to someone else using any sort of firearm as a masturbatory aid.

That would probably lead to more accidental suicides than anything else. Or at least a bunch of childless people.

 

[blotsfan]

Ok, no death but still...

 

[strawman]

I could actually buy this line of thinking... except I'm fairly certain that the license in question states that it only applies for use in the state in which it was issued. Now, if a state was to simply issue concealed carry permits period... well, then the Full Faith and Credit clause would DEFINITELY apply.

It's an interesting and clever idea and I actually agree that having a concealed carry permit in one state should apply to another as well.

Well all that's happening is the federal government and supreme court are removing rights from the states and giving those rights to the federal government. The problem, however, is that there are some things that should be different per state - Alaska needs open carry because bears, isolation, and very long emergency response times. Maybe Rhode Island doesn't. Point is that it should be up to the states and their citizens, not the federal government where "one size fits all, except here's a million loopholes to take care of corner cases, and don't mind these trucks driving through loopholes meant for other uses."

Let's recognize the nation's diversity and allow greater government at the lower, local levels, and only legislate federally that which CANNOT be done by the states.

 

[AshburnerX]

Well all that's happening is the federal government and supreme court are removing rights from the states and giving those rights to the federal government. The problem, however, is that there are some things that should be different per state - Alaska needs open carry because bears, isolation, and very long emergency response times. Maybe Rhode Island doesn't. Point is that it should be up to the states and their citizens, not the federal government where "one size fits all, except here's a million loopholes to take care of corner cases, and don't mind these trucks driving through loopholes meant for other uses."

Let's recognize the nation's diversity and allow greater government at the lower, local levels, and only legislate federally that which CANNOT be done by the states.

I disagree, because that sounds like a backdoor to the sort of thing that we had the Supreme Court rule on regarding Gay Marriage; states ignoring the rulings of other states as it suited them on political and personal grounds, not legal grounds. The diversity of the states should not be an excuse for one state to disregard a legal document from another state, whatever the case. I am willing to accept that there is no pressing NEED to conceal carry in Rhode Island, but I can find no pressing NEED to prevent someone who has legally acquired a permit to do from doing so or from seeking out a legal permit in their state of residence ether. There are already legal consequences for not following the rules of the permit as issued, so to deny me the opportunity to use said permit is redundant. As long as said permit doesn't violate a Federal statute, it should be legal wherever.

The beliefs and fears of my neighbors should not supersede my legal rights as an American citizen, whatever they may be routed in.

 

[strawman]

The diversity of the states should not be an excuse for one state to disregard a legal document from another state, whatever the case.

So if your legal document from state X allows you to perform something illegal in state Y, you should be able to do that in state Y? That makes no sense. The only basis marriage might be different is if the courts find a human right or perhaps a federal constitutional right and not just a legal right.

California is under water restrictions, but if I get a license from Michigan that says I can use all the surface water on my property that I want, that shouldn't and couldn't apply to me if I also buy property in California.

 

[AshburnerX]

So if your legal document from state X allows you to perform something illegal in state Y, you should be able to do that in state Y? That makes no sense. The only basis marriage might be different is if the courts find a human right or perhaps a federal constitutional right and not just a legal right.

It does, if there is no compelling reason for state Y to have made the activity illegal to begin with... which is something that can be decided in a federal court as a dispute between two or more states. And has, it several cases.

California is under water restrictions, but if I get a license from Michigan that says I can use all the surface water on my property that I want, that shouldn't and couldn't apply to me if I also buy property in California.

Except you wouldn't be able to get that kind of license because Michigan can only give you surface water rights to sources within it's borders, which California clearly is not. Michigan giving out a permit for a gun that resides within it's borders is not the same as Michigan giving away water that resides in California because one is within it's borders. A lake, pond, or stream bound by geography is not a gun that you toss in a car. This is why firearms are often regulated by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

Though really... water rights is becoming a hot button issue. A lot of cities and states are duking it out over water reservoirs because of how important water is for industrial uses. This is why fucking NESTLE gets to keep it's water bottle plants going in California but farmers are facing shortages.

 

[strawman]

So states have autonomy and rights to make laws that only affect their own state... except when they don't.

Your argument makes no sense. If Michigan can give me a permit for any particular right, then I can exercise that right anywhere. Or I can't. You can't have it both ways.

Except you wouldn't be able to get that kind of license because Michigan can only give you homosexual marriage rights rights to resources within it's borders, which California clearly is not.

FTFY.

It doesn't make sense, unless it does, in which case great for you, but it's pointless. If you want to get rid of states entirely, just make that the thesis of your argument, but don't pretend that you can have some things tied to borders and other things not.

 

[Cog]

The book is the law of the land, that is not in dispute. The people who wrote the book put in an approved method for changing the rules in the book - called "amending," which we have done multiple times throughout our history. The problem arises because people who don't agree with what the book says don't have enough popular support to change the book the "right" way so they try to cheat.

I don't disagree with you about the right to bear arms. I only think that the discussion should be about why something is good and necessary and not because it's written somewhere. It reminds me to another kind of people.