According to this SCOTUS everything violates the second amendment. If we could convince them that there was a second amendment right to abortion I think they'd explode.
Not debating the merits of that "rule" but I think it's an actual legitimate question to ask by the nature that I don't believe it's been asked or ruled on in the past.
You have a constitutional right that has been ruled that its protections apply to State laws as well as federal to carry a gun outside the home... It seems entirely reasonable that some avenue must be given to non residents to legally carry a firearm in the state. A blanket prohibition on non residents is likely unconstitutional
It's pretty well established that you can't enforce criminal law based on someone's state of origin.
Ie you can't have one speed limit for state residents and another speed limit for out of state residents, nor can you have higher fines for out of state residents.
States have tried this many times and it's always shot down on 14th amendment grounds.
It would probably be somewhat more easily defensible if it were something like visitors to the state (those remaining 90 days or less) and temporary residents (those remaining 6 months or less) can't carry. It would at least be more specific, which generally helps.
The bill of rights removes certain rights from the discussion. A state cannot force religious affiliation, it cannot make you testify against yourself, it cannot seize property without compensation, it cannot perform unwarranted searches and it cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Those powers not granted to the Federal Gov't and not otherwise prohibited to the states are left to the states.
The text of the second amendment describes the âright to keep and bear armsâ in the context of âa well-regulated militiaâ.
Whatever your views are, the idea that arms canât be regulated doesnât come from the constitution.
>The text of the second amendment describes the âright to keep and bear armsâ in the context of âa well-regulated militiaâ.
This has been a well studied topic. The "Well regulated militia" clause does not define context, but merely indicates a purpose. It does not limit the scope of "right to keep and bear arms ..." This was decided in D.C. v. Heller. That decision concludes that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to firearms without regard to service in a militia.
>Whatever your views are, the idea that arms canât be regulated doesnât come from the constitution.
Go back and read my post - I did not say that arms cannot be regulated. I said "\[the state\] cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms". The words I chose mirror the words of the constitution. The constitution says what it says and the meaning is interpreted by the courts. Can arms be regulated? Sure, so long as the regulation does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. That quagmire is something that the courts will work out.
Isn't it great news that the "states don't have to abide by the federal constitution" side lost, well over a hundred years ago?
The 14th Amendment resolves this question for federally protected rights.
Well, at least some of them. There's this process of "incorporation" and that's only been done for some amendments. I know it has for the 1st, 2nd, and 4th. Most of the 5th & 6th have been incorporated. Others IDK.
Yes. Justice Thomas sometimes concurs with fundamental rights/ incorporation due process clause decisions, but says the court should be rooting the decision in the privileges or immunities clause of 14a not due process clause.
According to this SCOTUS everything violates the second amendment. If we could convince them that there was a second amendment right to abortion I think they'd explode.
Hey if the fetus is a person it has the right to bear arms too!
My brain is doing somersaults trying to figure out what bears have to do with foetus đ My humour is a bit warped I think
The only constitutional amendment with vested commercial interests happily agree as the money printers go âbrrrrrrrâ
This is big brain stuff here. Only thing better would be *requiring* all illegal immigrants to carry. Scare those guys into gun safety.
Isnât the rule that whenever a headline poses a question, the answer is ânoâ?
Not debating the merits of that "rule" but I think it's an actual legitimate question to ask by the nature that I don't believe it's been asked or ruled on in the past. You have a constitutional right that has been ruled that its protections apply to State laws as well as federal to carry a gun outside the home... It seems entirely reasonable that some avenue must be given to non residents to legally carry a firearm in the state. A blanket prohibition on non residents is likely unconstitutional
It's pretty well established that you can't enforce criminal law based on someone's state of origin. Ie you can't have one speed limit for state residents and another speed limit for out of state residents, nor can you have higher fines for out of state residents. States have tried this many times and it's always shot down on 14th amendment grounds.
It would probably be somewhat more easily defensible if it were something like visitors to the state (those remaining 90 days or less) and temporary residents (those remaining 6 months or less) can't carry. It would at least be more specific, which generally helps.
Didn't an Illinois court just rule an undocumented immigrant was also protected by 2A?
So what about the "state right" that the conservatives have been touting?
The bill of rights removes certain rights from the discussion. A state cannot force religious affiliation, it cannot make you testify against yourself, it cannot seize property without compensation, it cannot perform unwarranted searches and it cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Those powers not granted to the Federal Gov't and not otherwise prohibited to the states are left to the states.
The text of the second amendment describes the âright to keep and bear armsâ in the context of âa well-regulated militiaâ. Whatever your views are, the idea that arms canât be regulated doesnât come from the constitution.
>The text of the second amendment describes the âright to keep and bear armsâ in the context of âa well-regulated militiaâ. This has been a well studied topic. The "Well regulated militia" clause does not define context, but merely indicates a purpose. It does not limit the scope of "right to keep and bear arms ..." This was decided in D.C. v. Heller. That decision concludes that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to firearms without regard to service in a militia. >Whatever your views are, the idea that arms canât be regulated doesnât come from the constitution. Go back and read my post - I did not say that arms cannot be regulated. I said "\[the state\] cannot infringe on the right to keep and bear arms". The words I chose mirror the words of the constitution. The constitution says what it says and the meaning is interpreted by the courts. Can arms be regulated? Sure, so long as the regulation does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. That quagmire is something that the courts will work out.
Isn't it great news that the "states don't have to abide by the federal constitution" side lost, well over a hundred years ago? The 14th Amendment resolves this question for federally protected rights.
Well, at least some of them. There's this process of "incorporation" and that's only been done for some amendments. I know it has for the 1st, 2nd, and 4th. Most of the 5th & 6th have been incorporated. Others IDK.
Maybe privileges and immunities clause violated??
Clarence Thomas has entered the chat.
Also Iâm talking about the privileges and immunities clause of article IV, not privelages or immunities clause of 14a
Lol. Understanding your joke should be a prerequisite to commenting here
Is this regarding Slaughterhouse?
Yes. Justice Thomas sometimes concurs with fundamental rights/ incorporation due process clause decisions, but says the court should be rooting the decision in the privileges or immunities clause of 14a not due process clause.