State Constitutional Carry and its Effect on Reciprocity

[RX-79G]

Torture is explicitly forbidden by the 8th Amendment ("Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"), and since torture is not a necessary part of the justice system described elsewhere, there is no conflict there.

Denying arms is explicitly forbidden by the 2nd Amendment. And since denying arms to felons is not a necessary part of the justice system described elsewhere, there is no conflict there. (See how this works?)

Not quite. Scalia was quite clear in Heller about especially dangerous or uncommon weapons being justifiably restricted. This is a nod to the reality that something uncontrollable or intrinsically unstable with potential for predictable collateral damage, needs to be subject to additional controls (and security) for the safety of the general public.

You are describing "arms control", which comes from legislation, not the Constitution or jurisprudence. A court did not make certain weapons inaccessible, Congress did with its powers to regulate even rights, which the courts have found to be reasonable for the safety of the general public.

The 2nd Amendment isn't more special than the 8th or the 1st. If the Congress makes a law that is an exception to the prohibition on unusual punishments or due process (Guantanamo), and the Supreme Court finds it reasonable, then it will be no different than the felon or wife beater exception to the 2nd.

 

[danez71]

The 2nd Amendment isn't more special than the 8th or the 1st. If the Congress makes a law that is an exception to the prohibition on unusual punishments or due process (Guantanamo), and the Supreme Court finds it reasonable, then it will be no different than the felon or wife beater exception to the 2nd.

Didnt SCOTUS rule against the Feds for Guantanamo due process saying that since we control it, it must consistant with the rest of the nation for due process.

It seems your example more supports my position and undermines yours from the last page.

 

[RX-79G]

Didnt SCOTUS rule against the Feds for Guantanamo due process saying that since we control it, it must consistant with the rest of the nation for due process.

It seems your example more supports my position and undermines yours from the last page.

Maybe that example does, but that doesn't change the fact that all restrictions on the BoR are imposed from outside the Constitution through legislation and the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution, and Guantanomo is an example of the one branch of government pushing too far and the courts reeling them back in. There is nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that a man released from prison would have a lifetime ban on his human rights to arms, speech, religion, etc. All of that happens due to the mechanism that Frank explained, and all of it is related. Felons aren't special cases and guns aren't special objects - they are limited for our benefit, just like everything else is.

Your "as written" isn't just the BoR, but the rest of the Constitution that provides the Judicial branch with the power to interpret the Constitution. And the Judicial branch has judged the GCA to be no more a breech of the BoR than disarming felons. The judicial branch has also judged Chicago's ban on all handguns to be a breech of the BoR, and they stopped it. There's the line I was talking about. There is no "as written" absolute interpretation for the BoR, and there never was. That might not fit with your wishes, but it has been historically the case for 229 years.

 

[barnbwt]

And since denying arms to felons is not a necessary part of the justice system described elsewhere, there is no conflict there. (See how this works?)

You're referring to inmates, yes? In that case, disarmament is most definitely necessary as part of their punishment under law. For released criminals, your claim comports with my assertion that disenfranchisement upon release is a cruel punishment (and needless since other methods like continued incarceration have the same public safety benefit)

 

[RX-79G]

You're referring to inmates, yes? In that case, disarmament is most definitely necessary as part of their punishment under law. For released criminals, your claim comports with my assertion that disenfranchisement upon release is a cruel punishment (and needless since other methods like continued incarceration have the same public safety benefit)

Again, not really. While it is absurd to imagine a jail full of armed prisoners, someone else may think it is absurd to imagine prisoners with the right to practice their religion or have continued due process. The Constitution doesn't define how prison is supposed to work, and this is just another example of how the Constitution required interpretation to make somewhat absolute statements work in reality.

In this case, the realities of a prison outweighed the equality of the Rights in the BoR, so some remain in force and others do not, and the courts support that.

 

[danez71]

Maybe that example does, but that doesn't change the fact that all restrictions on the BoR are imposed from outside the Constitution through legislation and the power of the courts to interpret the Constitution, and Guantanomo is an example of the one branch of government pushing too far and the courts reeling them back in. There is nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that a man released from prison would have a lifetime ban on his human rights to arms, speech, religion, etc. All of that happens due to the mechanism that Frank explained, and all of it is related. Felons aren't special cases and guns aren't special objects - they are limited for our benefit, just like everything else is.

Your "as written" isn't just the BoR, but the rest of the Constitution that provides the Judicial branch with the power to interpret the Constitution. And the Judicial branch has judged the GCA to be no more a breech of the BoR than disarming felons. The judicial branch has also judged Chicago's ban on all handguns to be a breech of the BoR, and they stopped it. There's the line I was talking about. There is no "as written" absolute interpretation for the BoR, and there never was. That might not fit with your wishes, but it has been historically the case for 229 years.

You seem to be off on some tangent but thanks for a knowledging that your example supported me and not you.

As to the bolded part.... I never remotely said anything like that and for you to allude that I did is misleading.

If you want to twist the conversation into something else, please don't misrepresent what I said.

 

[RX-79G]

You seem to be off on some tangent but thanks for a knowledging that your example supported me and not you.

As to the bolded part.... I never remotely said anything like that and for you to allude that I did is misleading.

If you want to twist the conversation into something else, please don't misrepresent what I said.

Instead of chastising me for this alledged misinterpretation of "as written", you might want to simply take the opportunity to say what you meant by that.

 

[danez71]

Instead of chastising me for this alledged misinterpretation of "as written", you might want to simply take the opportunity to say what you meant by that.

Whoa hang on there.. before you get all huffy...
I never used the term "as written".... you did.

I did, however, say the BOR was written to include all the U.S. and wasn't geographic dependent of which your guantanomo example reinforced my claim.

 

[RX-79G]

Whoa hang on there.. before you get all huffy...
I never used the term "as written".... you did.

I did, however, say the BOR was written to include all the U.S. and wasn't geographic dependent of which your guantanomo example reinforced my claim.

It isn't geographic dependent, and that was not the point I was making by referring to Guantanomo. But the jurisdictions (think about that word) can vary in the electorate's choices on how to legislate those rights and the courts can vary by jurisdiction in how they might interpret the Constitution. If the lower courts get it wrong, the higher courts step in. If the higher courts haven't stepped in, it is because no one can make a convincing enough case that the lower court got their interpretation wrong.

As of today, the Supreme Court knows of no case that makes them believe that a CA or NY court has misinterpreted the Constitution in cases involving challenges to gun control currently in force. Until they do, that gun control is no less in keeping with the Constitution and BoR than any other law.

 

[danez71]

Your guantanomo comment wasn't intended to reinforce my point but it did and you already agreed that it did.

RX,
What are you trying to correct me or educate me about?

It's obvious you've misconstrued what I've said which probably why you've alluded, mistakenly, to things I didn't say.

Like that other thread, you're making leaping assumptions to things that haven't been said and replying with points that don't apply.

 

[RX-79G]

Your guantanomo comment wasn't intended to reinforce my point but it did and you already agreed that it did.

RX,
What are you trying to correct me or educate me about?

It's obvious you've misconstrued what I've said which probably why you've alluded, mistakenly, to things I didn't say.

Like that other thread, you're making leaping assumptions to things that haven't been said and replying with points that don't apply.

I used Guantanomo as an example of the federal government sidestepping due process, which we both seemed to understand, but then later you referred to geography, as if the Guantanomo reference was about where it was happening rather than what was happening there. I was only referring to the violation of due process, not that it happened in an odd US territory. If due process was violated in Kansas my comment would mean the same thing as Guantanomo.

I really am not trying to "twist" anything. If we are misunderstanding each other, lets clarify rather than denounce. I can disagree with your without resorting to oddball rhetorical tactics.

 

[danez71]

Right. And I mentioned geography because the Feds were overturned by SCOTUS despite the Feds arguing it's geography and ultimate ownership precluded them from having to extend certain rights to the prisoners.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

What our Constitution states and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813.

Wow! I never though I'd read something Frank posted that I could honestly disagree with!

What our Constitution states and how it applies was a matter of dispute from the first moment the members of the Constitutional Convention, which was originally convened to solely to revise the Articles of Confederation, decided instead to draft up a whole new Constitution. A great many people were thoroughly peeved when this happened because they believed these people had completely overstepped their bounds. Indeed, several in the convention itself wrestled with that very thing.

Virtually every aspect of the Constitution was heavily disputed, some more than others...and a bill of rights was perhaps the single, most heavily warred over aspect in the existing political arena.

The Constitution was almost not ratified because of it, in fact, and the states made it abundantly clear that a bill of rights was to be the first order of business, starting with the First Congress..."or else".

Or else what, you might ask? Well, as far as New York was concerned, for example, if the new federal government did not resolve the issue of a bill of rights within 6 years, they would secede from the Union.

How hotly was this debated and fought over? From the very beginning, it made the recent Hillary/Trump election debacle look like children squabbling in a playground.


I've been reading about this recently, and it's fascinating! I was never really all that interested in history in school, but as I've gotten older and (presumably) wiser, my interest in such matters has picked up. I wish I could remember the exact titles and authors of a couple books I have at work (my lunch time entertainment). They're both about the history behind the Bill of Rights. I'll post them later.

I think many here would find them an interesting read.

 

[greyghost01]

I fully agree constitutional carry is what should be, NO Law should over ride the constitution EVER, The 2nd Amendment clearly states to keep and bear arms, In the English language I was taught this means to have and carry, PERIOD It says nothing about permission or paying anyone do you have to pay for the 1st amendment?