xXxplosive
Member
States Rights.......not in NJ.
And the Congress is powerless to redress violations of the Constitution?I’m really not sure what you’re talking about here. My belief in states’ rights has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation here. All that matters is this: The courts decide what is constitutional and what isn’t. That’s it. We can all have our own views on what’s constitutional and how much states’ rights matter, but it doesn’t mean a thing in the real world.
Congress can pass whatever laws they want, but it’s up to the courts to decide if those laws are constitutional or not.And the Congress is powerless to redress violations of the Constitution?
So no one has to obey any laws until the Supreme Court rules on them?Congress can pass whatever laws they want, but it’s up to the courts to decide if those laws are constitutional or not.
Ah, the old "This law won't cure cancer, eliminate the debt and double my income, so it's no good" theory.So you think Congress is somehow going to sweep away all the bad gun laws because they feel the need to defend the Constitution? And national reciprocity is the vehicle they plan to use?
I won’t hold my breath waiting on that one.
Ah, the old "This law won't cure cancer, eliminate the debt and double my income, so it's no good" theory.
Where did you get the idea that anyone expects reciprocity to " sweep away all the bad gun laws?" All I'm looking for is progress toward a freer society, and you reject progress because you demand miracles.
You’re the one who keeps saying this law will get rid of unconstitutional state restrictions.
It will -- just as "shall issue" laws have given us more freedom. I can remember when in most states you could NOT carry a handgun unless you were a member of the ruling elite. That's changed now.You’re the one saying it will give us more freedom.
And the monsters under the bed told you that?Having New Jersey’s gun laws imposed upon me in Kentucky by the feds is not “progress toward a freer society.”
You keep quoting me and then posting non sequiturs in response.So no one has to obey any laws until the Supreme Court rules on them?Congress can pass whatever laws they want, but it’s up to the courts to decide if those laws are constitutional or not.
So you'll pass up a chance to make a good profit on this bet? You must not be very sure of your convictions!
I'm afraid that I don't have time to dig out the appropriate citations right this minute, but all statutes are presumed constitutional until some court of competent jurisdiction declares them otherwise. The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate unconstitutionality.A law isn’t unconstitutional until it’s ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Until then, it’s a law that’s expected to be followed. At least, that’s what I believe is the case based on my layman’s understanding of the subject. Maybe one of our resident lawyers like @Spats McGee could chime in.
No, I'm challenging the proposition that the Court must act before Congress can act.You keep quoting me and then posting non sequiturs in response.
A law isn’t unconstitutional until it’s ruled unconstitutional by the courts. Until then, it’s a law that’s expected to be followed. At least, that’s what I believe is the case based on my layman’s understanding of the subject. Maybe one of our resident lawyers like @Spats McGee could chime in.
Are you claiming there’s some litmus test for determining the constitutionality of a law outside of the courts?
I never once said that. I simply said that all laws are presumed constitutional until the courts rule otherwise. And Spats (a lawyer) has said that’s correct. I also said that many of the gun restrictions that a lot of us gun folks see as unconstitutional have actually been ruled constitutional by the courts. So, because what we think is irrelevant, those laws are actually constitutional until an equivalent or higher court (or constitutional amendment) says they’re not.No, I'm challenging the proposition that the Court must act before Congress can act.
Are you claiming there’s some sort of expiration date on court rulings? I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. You seem to be operating with a complete misunderstanding of how this whole thing works.I also challenge the proposition that all court rulings are perpetual -- I've cited the Dredd Scott case as an example, and I'll add Plessy v. Ferguson.
They are not perpetual, but under the principle of stare decisis, courts are reluctant to overturn prior decisions.I also challenge the proposition that all court rulings are perpetual -- I've cited the Dredd Scott case as an example, and I'll add Plessy v. Ferguson.
And how does this translate into New Jersey making all other states adopt New Jersey gun laws?They are not perpetual, but under the principle of stare decisis, courts are reluctant to overturn prior decisions.
How are you going to get NJ, NY, CA, DC, HI, et al to go along with that? DLs are done by a common reciprocity because libs do not fear someone with a DL; they do fear someone with a gun who is not LE or their own bodyguards.
how bout the concept used in driver license reciprocity and take citizen’s firearm carry out of the federal overseers emotional guidance into what is used by the states as outlined here:
https://www.aamva.org/
....his concept would leave the states still in charge of their firearms criteria but uniformity nationally across thru their individual statutes.
I'm afraid that I don't have time to dig out the appropriate citations right this minute, but all statutes are presumed constitutional until some court of competent jurisdiction declares them otherwise. The burden is on the challenger to demonstrate unconstitutionality.
...It has been truly said, that the presumption is in favour of every legislative act, and that the whole burden of proof lies on him who denies its constitutionality....
...Due respect for the decisions of a coordinate branch of Government demands that we invalidate a congressional enactment only upon a plain showing that Congress has exceeded its constitutional bounds. See United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S., at 568, 577_578 (Kennedy, J., concurring); United States v. Harris, 106 U.S., at 635. With this presumption of constitutionality in mind, we turn to the question whether §13981 falls within Congress' power under Article I, §8, of the Constitution....
Who said anything like that?And how does this translate into New Jersey making all other states adopt New Jersey gun laws?
Did I say that it did?And how does this translate into New Jersey making all other states adopt New Jersey gun laws?
Nobody had said anything like that in this thread. We’ve said time and time again that we’re worried about future restrictions from the federal government that would go along with a national carry bill (or follow soon after).And how does this translate into New Jersey making all other states adopt New Jersey gun laws?