Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by coswabbit, Jan 24, 2018.
States Rights.......not in NJ.
And the Congress is powerless to redress violations of the Constitution?
Remember, the Supreme Court ruled (in the Dredd Scott decision) that a Black man has no rights a White man must respect. Did that make the Civil War an unconstitutional act by the Federal Government?
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 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.
So no one has to obey any laws until the Supreme Court rules on them?
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. You’re the one saying it will give us more freedom.
Having New Jersey’s gun laws imposed upon me in Kentucky by the feds is not “progress toward a freer society.”
Nope. I say it will be a step toward constitutional carry
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.
And the monsters under the bed told you that?
Common sense and a lifetime of experience tells me that. And now you’re just being a jerk.
None of this progress was accomplished with federal imposition. And none shall be.
In either case, we shall soon see. But I wouldn’t bet money on your position.
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'm sure that none of the progress you keep talking about has been gained at the hand of the federal government. Every advancement in gun rights of the past 30 years has been an act of a state legislature and not the US Congress. In my lifetime, FOPA is the only thing done by the feds that could be seen as advancing the cause of gun owners, and even it was won at the cost of closing the machine gun registry.
There is no evidence that federal involvement in gun issues will improve them for us. None. You can deal in hope all you want, but I'll stick with history.
The feds have screwed up every issue like this they have gotten their hands on. From education, welfare, Vet issues to gun issues. The LAST thing I want is the Feds to meddle with anything gun related. Seems the majority of folks pushing this are from restrictive states, not ones where concealed carry is readily available.
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.
No, I'm challenging the proposition that the Court must act before Congress can act.
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.
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.
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.
The Dred Scott case held precedent until it was overturned by a constitutional amendment. And Plessy v. Ferguson held precedent until it was overturned by another SCOTUS case, Brown v. Board of Education. Neither just expired, because that’s not how it works.
They are not perpetual, but under the principle of stare decisis, courts are reluctant to overturn prior decisions.
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:
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.
And how does this translate into New Jersey making all other states adopt New Jersey gun laws?
do not have to as there are several states that are not members, such as Georgia, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Tennessee and Nevada repealed the authorizing legislation in 2007, although it still generally conforms to the agreement through regulations.
this concept would leave the states still in charge of their firearms criteria but uniformity nationally across thru their individual statutes.
What a worthless and useless idea. The recognition by a State of the driver's licenses issued by other States is still a voluntary action by each State.
If each State voluntarily recognized ever other State's conceal weapons permit, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Another incomprehensible comment. Does this mean anything in English?
I had them handy. See --
Brown v. State of Maryland, 25 U.S. 419 (1827), at 437:
And much more recently in U.S. v Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000):
Who said anything like that?
Did I say that it did?
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).
GOVERNOR MURPHY ATTACKS RIGHT TO CARRY-
January 26, 2018. At today’s “gun safety” announcement, Governor Murphy, Senate President Stephen Sweeney, and Attorney General Gurbir Grewal launched a full scale attack on the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with a firearm outside the home, otherwise known as right to carry.
Murphy announced an intention to reverse Governor Christie’s executive order allowing those facing serious threats to qualify for a handgun carry permit, and to challenge any federal action on right to carry reciprocity.
ANJRPC Executive Director Scott Bach slammed the move. “The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that police have no duty to protect individual citizens, which means you’re on your own in an emergency. It is an outrage that the same government that abandons its duty to keep us safe is also working to prevent us from protecting ourselves. Governor Murphy will have the blood of more innocents like Carol Bowne on his hands.”
Bach continued, “New Jersey is going to have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into legal recognition of the right to defend yourself outside the home. ANJRPC is more than happy to oblige and will be at the forefront of the movement to restore this fundamental right.”
Please forward this email to every gun owner you know, and if you don’t already receive alerts from ANJRPC please subscribe to our free email alerts for the latest Second Amendment breaking news and action alerts (https://anjrpc.site-ym.com/?Email_Request).
About ANJRPC: The Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs is the official New Jersey affiliate of the NRA, and is New Jersey’s oldest, largest, and most effective Second Amendment advocacy organization (www.anjrpc.org).
Click the link below for he online version of this alert:
Here we go............
Separate names with a comma.