rushmc 23
Recommended Posts
kallend 2,183
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
The 2nd Amendment CAN be restricted, according to SCOTUS as articulated by Scalia.
And that restriction would be absolute if you had your way
So you think the entire population of the USA consists of convicted felons or loonies.
It may come as a surprise, but not everyone is like you.
Another example of your dishonesty debating a topic
The only dishonest statement is the one highlighted in red, which you made.
Your "solutions" would be a ban
You are just not willing not say it again
Again? Please provide a link to where I said it in the first place. Oh, you can't.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
okalb 104
QuoteNews:
Cities can’t ban guns in parks, town hallsFull story: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/31/2340997/state-lawmakers-cities-cant-ban.html
Under a new law that takes effect Oct. 1, all of the state’s cities and counties must repeal local rules limiting gun ownership. Although the state has claimed sole right to regulate firearms since 1987, this year’s new law adds fines for local officials who fail to comply, and gives gun owners a right to sue for damages if they believe their rights have been violated.
Though the initial bill suggested a fine of $5 million, the final legislation lowered the amount to $5,000.
The result: Local leaders have begun to comply, cancelling laws that kept guns out of parks and community buildings, and taking down signs warning visitors not to bring firearms to such places.
This is called "preemption", whereby the state reserves the right to regulate guns, and prohibits local governments from doing so. Previously, there were no punishment provisions, so that local municipalities could violate the preemption law at will. And that created a patchwork quilt set of laws, equivalent to speed traps for driving offenses, that ensnared law-abiding citizens in trouble, for simply setting foot someplace where they didn't know that guns were prohibited. This new law puts enforcement teeth into the state preemption, and will keep innocent citizens from getting into trouble because of laws which vary from place to place within their daily travels.
I am not trying to start a fight here. I have a legitimate question. It seems to me that that same people who support this are opposed to the feds telling the states what they can do as far as gun laws go. So it is ok for the state of FL to tell the cities what they are allowed to do, but it is not ok for the federal govt to tell the states what they can do? I don't understand the logic. How is it any different?
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
QuoteI am not trying to start a fight here. I have a legitimate question. It seems to me that that same people who support this are opposed to the feds telling the states what they can do as far as gun laws go. So it is ok for the state of FL to tell the cities what they are allowed to do, but it is not ok for the federal govt to tell the states what they can do? I don't understand the logic. How is it any different?
Selective Anti-Federalism. The same people who support Federal law dictating marijuana (or anything else they oppose) and not allowing the State to decide are against any action by the Federal government to enact Federal laws on firearms (or anything else they favor.)
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young
JohnRich 4
QuoteIt seems to me that that same people who support this are opposed to the feds telling the states what they can do as far as gun laws go. So it is ok for the state of FL to tell the cities what they are allowed to do, but it is not ok for the federal govt to tell the states what they can do? I don't understand the logic. How is it any different?
Good observation, and mostly true for gun supporters. Here's the explanation for the seeming contradiction:
Many of us travel through multiple government jurisdictions in our daily travels, between different cities and counties. I live in one small city, near a junction of three county lines, and often travel short distances into those other counties, other cities within those counties, and the unincorporated areas of counties. If each one had its own unique gun laws it would be very difficult to legally comply with each and every one. It might require constant stopping to unload a gun and put it in the trunk, then stopping again a little later to take it back out, load it and put it back in the passenger compartment. Many perfectly well-intentioned law-abiding people would end up in trouble with the law in such a mish-mash of varying gun laws were allowed to be enacted by every Tom, Dick & Harry municipality. And exercising constitutional rights shouldn't be such a difficult burden.
This is why we have state-wide preemption on the issue, to prevent this kind of problem. By having the laws uniform state-wide, the citizens can comply without inadvertantly running into trouble, because they have just one simple set of rules to follow within the entire state.
Travel between states still presents problems with varying gun laws, but relative few people do that on a regular basis, and in those cases, advance planning can take place to figure out what to do with the gun. For people that live near state lines and travel daily back and forth across them, they can easily learn the differences between two sets of laws.
I travel from Texas to Florida to see my kids and grandkids, and I've looked up the laws of those states and the ones inbetween. My gun is legal in my car in four of the five states, but not in Alabama. When I get to that state line, I have to stop and unload the gun and put it in the trunk. It's a nuisance, but a minor inconvenience on a 1,000-mile drive. But if I had to do that 3 times every time I went to the grocery store for a gallon of milk, that would be too much.
So, having gun laws uniform within a state, but allowing the states to vary, is sort of a best compromise between state sovereignity and individual freedom. And also, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the right to determine gun laws - that's a power reserved to the states, although they routinely disregard that little fact, by claiming control under the "interstate commerce" clause.
That's my take on it.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteI am not trying to start a fight here. I have a legitimate question. It seems to me that that same people who support this are opposed to the feds telling the states what they can do as far as gun laws go. So it is ok for the state of FL to tell the cities what they are allowed to do, but it is not ok for the federal govt to tell the states what they can do? I don't understand the logic. How is it any different?
Selective Anti-Federalism. The same people who support Federal law dictating marijuana (or anything else they oppose) and not allowing the State to decide are against any action by the Federal government to enact Federal laws on firearms (or anything else they favor.)
Twaddle.
The two situations are nothing alike. There are federal laws concerning marijuana. A State law that allows marijuana use is in opposition to a Federal law making that use illegal, and the Federal law trumps.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rehmwa 2
Quoteand the Federal law trumps.
I think the general concept of when a Federal law trumps should be strictly restricted to items directly attributable to the constitution.
Anything else (since the Feds should mind their own business), the state should trump Fed.
I think we forgot how this country was supposed to be structured.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteand the Federal law trumps.
I think the general concept of when a Federal law trumps should be strictly restricted to items directly attributable to the constitution.
Anything else (since the Feds should mind their own business), the state should trump Fed.
I think we forgot how this country was supposed to be structured.
Unfortunately, the country hasn't been structured like that for a long, long time.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,183
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
The 2nd Amendment CAN be restricted, according to SCOTUS as articulated by Scalia.
And that restriction would be absolute if you had your way
So you think the entire population of the USA consists of convicted felons or loonies.
It may come as a surprise, but not everyone is like you.
Another example of your dishonesty debating a topic
The only dishonest statement is the one highlighted in red, which you made.
Your "solutions" would be a ban
You are just not willing not say it again
Again? Still waiting: Please provide a link to where I said it in the first place.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,183
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHeller is irrelevant to the issue at hand in Florida, regardless of how many times you cut/paste it. Florida already has statutes that cover weapons in schools and gov't buildings.
As I wrote previously, I was answering a specific question posed in this thread and that you have now CONVENIENTLY snipped, NOT referring to Florida. Take some reading lessons.
And your answer was incorrect, as shown by McDonald v. Chicago and my response above....regardless of how you bold it.
Take some legal lessons.
Try taking a gun into Chicago's City Hall and see how you get on.
Why would I? I'm sure IL state law prevents it, *just like FL law does*.
So you admit that Mcdonald vs Chicago re-affirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned Heller are permissible and that such restrictions include those "prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings", and that I was correct.
Cool.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHeller is irrelevant to the issue at hand in Florida, regardless of how many times you cut/paste it. Florida already has statutes that cover weapons in schools and gov't buildings.
As I wrote previously, I was answering a specific question posed in this thread and that you have now CONVENIENTLY snipped, NOT referring to Florida. Take some reading lessons.
And your answer was incorrect, as shown by McDonald v. Chicago and my response above....regardless of how you bold it.
Take some legal lessons.
Try taking a gun into Chicago's City Hall and see how you get on.
Why would I? I'm sure IL state law prevents it, *just like FL law does*.
So you admit that Mcdonald vs Chicago re-affirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned Heller are permissible and that such restrictions include those "prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings", and that I was correct.
Cool.
Wow, you really *DO* have a reading comprehension problem, since I said nothing of the sort.
Maybe you should work on that.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,183
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHeller is irrelevant to the issue at hand in Florida, regardless of how many times you cut/paste it. Florida already has statutes that cover weapons in schools and gov't buildings.
As I wrote previously, I was answering a specific question posed in this thread and that you have now CONVENIENTLY snipped, NOT referring to Florida. Take some reading lessons.
And your answer was incorrect, as shown by McDonald v. Chicago and my response above....regardless of how you bold it.
Take some legal lessons.
Try taking a gun into Chicago's City Hall and see how you get on.
Why would I? I'm sure IL state law prevents it, *just like FL law does*.
So you admit that Mcdonald vs Chicago re-affirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned Heller are permissible and that such restrictions include those "prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings", and that I was correct.
Cool.
Wow, you really *DO* have a reading comprehension problem, since I said nothing of the sort.
Maybe you should work on that.
The thread is there for all to see; in answering the question "Can a city, or even a state, restrict the BOR?" I was right, as stated in my original response. You are weaseling. I also see that rushmc has disappeared after being unable to provide a link...
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteHeller is irrelevant to the issue at hand in Florida, regardless of how many times you cut/paste it. Florida already has statutes that cover weapons in schools and gov't buildings.
As I wrote previously, I was answering a specific question posed in this thread and that you have now CONVENIENTLY snipped, NOT referring to Florida. Take some reading lessons.
And your answer was incorrect, as shown by McDonald v. Chicago and my response above....regardless of how you bold it.
Take some legal lessons.
Try taking a gun into Chicago's City Hall and see how you get on.
Why would I? I'm sure IL state law prevents it, *just like FL law does*.
So you admit that Mcdonald vs Chicago re-affirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned Heller are permissible and that such restrictions include those "prohibiting the possession of firearms by felons or mentally ill," and "laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings", and that I was correct.
Cool.
Wow, you really *DO* have a reading comprehension problem, since I said nothing of the sort.
Maybe you should work on that.
The thread is there for all to see; in answering the question "Can a city, or even a state, restrict the BOR?" I was right, as stated in my original response. You are weaseling. I also see that rushmc has disappeared after being unable to provide a link...
No, you're not. Since the decision specifically mentioned those items, they obviously do not consider them restrictions upon the right. Florida already has similar restrictions in place under state law so they are not considered unconstitutional. Your continued attempt to use them as 'proof' is nothing more than a vain attempt at a red herring.
On the other hand, they *did* state that outright bans and lock/storage requirements for weapons in the home *are*, in fact, unconstitutional, and that the 2nd *does* apply to the States under the 14th Amendment.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,183
Weaseling becomes you.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
Quote
Weaseling becomes you.
Do you make a habit of talking to yourself in the mirror?
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuote
Weaseling becomes you.
Do you make a habit of talking to yourself in the mirror?
Holy Shit dude, 28000 posts and the best you got is "I know you are but what am I?"
What you say is reflective of your knowledge...HOW ya say it is reflective of your experience. Airtwardo
Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama
Someone's going to be spanked! Hopefully, it will be me. Skymama
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
Weaseling becomes you.
Do you make a habit of talking to yourself in the mirror?
Holy Shit dude, 28000 posts and the best you got is "I know you are but what am I?"
It's all his comment was worth.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
The 2nd Amendment CAN be restricted, according to SCOTUS as articulated by Scalia.
And that restriction would be absolute if you had your way
So you think the entire population of the USA consists of convicted felons or loonies.
It may come as a surprise, but not everyone is like you.
Another example of your dishonesty debating a topic
The only dishonest statement is the one highlighted in red, which you made.
Your "solutions" would be a ban
You are just not willing not say it again
Again? Still waiting: Please provide a link to where I said it in the first place.
You never say anything direct.
But the solutions you advocate do/would result in a defacto ban. Whether you admit it or not.
So I am not sure what you think you are waiting for
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
kallend 2,183
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
The 2nd Amendment CAN be restricted, according to SCOTUS as articulated by Scalia.
And that restriction would be absolute if you had your way
So you think the entire population of the USA consists of convicted felons or loonies.
It may come as a surprise, but not everyone is like you.
Another example of your dishonesty debating a topic
The only dishonest statement is the one highlighted in red, which you made.
Your "solutions" would be a ban
You are just not willing not say it again
Again? Still waiting: Please provide a link to where I said it in the first place.
You never say anything direct.
But the solutions you advocate do/would result in a defacto ban. Whether you admit it or not.
So I am not sure what you think you are waiting for
Translation - Rushmc makes a claim about me but is, as usual, completely unable to back it up with facts.
FACT IS, I have never made such a statement, which is why you can't find one.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 3,132
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Holy Shit dude, 28000 posts and the best you got is "I know you are but what am I?"
Methinks you haven't read many of his posts if you didn't expect that . . .
Methinks you haven't read many of his posts if you didn't expect that . . .
mnealtx 0
Quote>Holy Shit dude, 28000 posts and the best you got is "I know you are but what am I?"
Methinks you haven't read many of his posts if you didn't expect that . . .
Or many of yours.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,183
QuoteQuote>Holy Shit dude, 28000 posts and the best you got is "I know you are but what am I?"
Methinks you haven't read many of his posts if you didn't expect that . . .
Or many of yours.
You really can't help yourself. Pitiful, really.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuote>Holy Shit dude, 28000 posts and the best you got is "I know you are but what am I?"
Methinks you haven't read many of his posts if you didn't expect that . . .
Or many of yours.
You really can't help yourself. Pitiful, really.
My argument has been the same for the whole damn thread, John, and your legal summations are as bereft of value as your psychiatric ones...so like usual, you try to 'shoot the messenger' in order to salve your ego.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
kallend 2,183
My answer in post #10 this thread was 100% correct. Your responses in #11 and #17 were 100% irrelevant.
Cities and states CAN restrict the BOR per SCOTUS in Heller, and Mcdonald did not nullify that part of Heller.
Cities and states CAN restrict the BOR per SCOTUS in Heller, and Mcdonald did not nullify that part of Heller.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only dishonest statement is the one highlighted in red, which you made.
Your "solutions" would be a ban
You are just not willing not say it again
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites