Judge rules state's gun laws prevail

[Jim March]

This is what I just EMailed to Mr. King:

---

Mr. King,

I saw your quote in the Post-Standard.

There are some details regarding the incorporation issue you need to know. In short form: the key case labeling the 2nd Amendment as something states can violate is US v. Cruikshank (decision released in 1876). The Heller case didn't specifically overturn it because state-level violations weren't at issue. However, the Heller court went WAY out of it's way to cast doubt on Cruikshank as being valid case law, and for good reason: it's a hideously racist decision plus it also banned the Federal government from controlling state-level violations of voting rights and even the first amendment. Those portions of Cruikshank have of course been overturned, but the part regarding the 2nd lives on.

Heller put that part on live support, spiraling into the grave.

The Heller court explicitly cite a book titled “The Day Freedom Died: The Colfax Massacre, the Supreme Court, and the Betrayal of Reconstruction” by Charles Lane. In doing so, for the first time ever the US Supreme Court is confronting it's own deeply racist past.

The entire story behind the incorporation argument is attached. I believe you'll find it very interesting reading.

Jim March - 916-xxx-xxxx

 

[atk]

This website is read by a lot of gun people, plus a fair amount of fence sitters and antis.

When you start to wrap the whole gun ownership thing up in the confederate flag and start proclaiming that states had the right to own slaves, it makes us all look like idiots. I did find it ironic that he talked about slavery and elitism in the same sentence.

It was a crappy example. Sorry you lost your slaves.
This is where I trot out the obligatory "the south lost, get over it."

I don't believe that the original post, in which Phil DeGraves said,

So owning a firearm for self-protection is only a privelege now, granted by the states?

Then why did the South have to free all their slaves if states rights trump the Constitution? What elitist hypocrites!

was in support of states being able to keep slaves. I believe Phil had intended to compare states preventing the exercise of a civil right (infringing upon firearms ownership) with states preventing exercise of other civil rights (slavery). I do not see an attempt to place the right to keep and bear arms equal with the "right" to keep slaves.

 

[ctdonath]

You might want to think about this:

The core premise of "restricted permits" in NY is that NY is absolutely a "may issue" state, and the issuing judge may revoke the permit for ANY reason at ANY time (including right now, for no reason whatsoever). As such, the restriction amounts to the judge saying "If I catch you using this permit for any reason other than the explicit reasons stated, I _WILL_ pull your permit" (and yes, he absolutely does have the power to do so).

Given that, the flip side is that NY criminal law does not recognize permit restrictions - it's a carry permit, all-out, full stop. One CAN LEGALLY carry outside the given restrictions (so long as you have the permit), and the worst that can happen is the issuing judge finds out and pulls the permit - no criminal repercussions.

 

[RevolvingCylinder]

Actually, the N. Y. court isn't ignoring Heller. It's just that Heller, by itself, doesn't make the Second Amendment applicable to the states.

I didn't say the NYS Supreme Court. I said "in NY", not necessarily the Court.

Maybe it should, but it's not happening. In any case, a whole lot of folks in this country don't agree with you, or I, or most of the people on this board about what those rights are. You think they're wrong. I may think they're wrong. So what? They still disagree and think they're right.

Then they should repeal the Second Amendment or repeal Article 2, Section 4 of the New York Civil Rights Law. As it stands, they are violating both Federal and State law.

There are a lot of folks who are NOT just allowing this. A lot of people are contributing time, money, skill and training to fighting these cases and, we hope, bringing about a good result. There's no quick and easy fix. It will take time, money and hard work -- and a firm grounding in reality.

I was referring to the ubiquitous "flee the state" comments and why we just can't surrender states. There are some people who are for the right to keep and bear arms who believe that states like NY aren't worth our efforts.

 

[Rogue6]

NY ruling on CCW permit

1 - The judge says he based it on NY's statute, which reiterates the federal 2nd Amendment. That should be grounds for appeal based on state law alone, using other jurisdictions' (e.g., SCOTUS) interpretation of that exact same language. But...

2 - Every constitutional right has some form of reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, the military gets to discriminate on various grounds, you might have to get a parade permit and follow designated routes to freely assemble, and so on. Denial of a CCW permit does not absolutely restrict the right to keep and bear, it just modifies (okay, maybe that's double-speak for "infringe[ment]") the manner in which the right is exercised. I dont' agree with it, but I think it's going to be hard to get around that in most cases.

 

[romma]

this judge is going to be imposing the same restrictions on most of the other permits he issues now. He has overlooked the restrictions up until now it seems.

Now he has been enlightened.

On a side-note, what a bunch of sore losers these people are. I hope soon, keeping and bearing arms by lawful citizens becomes as accepted as all other rights are, as it should be.

 

[HeavyDuty]

Made to order to incorporate. Call Gura.

Nope. We need "Cinderella" cases to incorporate, and this one has icky DUI involvement. The Chicago case and others like it are the way to do it - hand-picked situations.

This one could bite us in the butt.

 

[k_dawg]

States and judges ignored the basic human rights of blacks for nigh 150 years.

What makes anyone think that those same bigoted bastards are not still in a judges robe?

 

[Shadow1198]

The Supreme Court may have recognized the right of individuals to possess lawful firearms in their homes, but it did not overrule the established precedent that the Second Amendment applies only to Congress and not to the states, Walsh wrote.

The Supreme Court's ruling would have an impact in the nation's capital because the District of Columbia is not a state and is under the jurisdiction of Congress, the judge decided. But it would not have an impact on states' rights to establish firearms laws, he concluded.

10th Amendment

"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 judge is full of sh*t, should be disbarred, and should be put in jail. So basically Supreme Court rulings no longer mean anything in the state of New York, only in DC. The implication that the clear ruling by the SC on a constitutional right is somehow null and void in NYS is just bullsh*t. When are we going to start criminally prosecuting and punishing people for such blatant disregard for the law and constitution?

 

[wristtwister]

Makes me wonder what part of "right to bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" they can't understand. I can see where this is headed again, and the antis will be on the bandwagon again, just like Nancy Pelosi was before the ink's dry on the court decisions.

I personally think that needing a "carry" permit is a violation.

WT

 

[Orange_Magnum]

What is Common Sense Gun Laws, as Obama puts it? Common Sense to who? To him, a fruit cake? No, thanks...

 

[alemonkey]

So if the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to states, just the Federal government, wouldn't the same also go for the 1st?

 

[TwitchALot]

So if the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to states, just the Federal government, wouldn't the same also go for the 1st?

Afraid not. The First Amendment has already been incorporated. The Second has not.

 

[06]

Time for a vote to rid themselves of the black cloaked vermin, wc

 

[alemonkey]

Quote:Originally Posted by alemonkey
So if the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to states, just the Federal government, wouldn't the same also go for the 1st?

Afraid not. The First Amendment has already been incorporated. The Second has not.

What I don't understand is how can some amendments be incorporated and some not? Surely the founding fathers didn't intend us to pick and choose which rights apply to everyone?

 

[Frank Ettin]

What I don't understand is how can some amendments be incorporated and some not? Surely the founding fathers didn't intend us to pick and choose which rights apply to everyone?

It may not seem to make a lot of sense, but that's the way it is. For more background, check out the Wikipedia link in Post #10, above.