On 2013-04-13 22:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-04-13 22:23, landmark wrote:
Then are the people of a state or city allowed to define what those limits should be? Such as the people of NYC or Chicago or DC?

No. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."

The people can take a crack at it, but ultimately, it's not their call.

On 2013-04-14 10:37, landmark wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-04-13 22:41, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-04-13 22:23, landmark wrote:
Then are the people of a state or city allowed to define what those limits should be? Such as the people of NYC or Chicago or DC?

No. "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution."

The people can take a crack at it, but ultimately, it's not their call.

But Woland just admitted to Bob that there were limits--no fighter jets, etc.

On 2013-04-14 11:03, Woland wrote:
By the way, please explain to me why "universal background checks" for the purchase of a firearm are not an infringement on the people's inalienable rights, but showing a picture I.D. before voting would be.

On 2013-04-14 12:01, landmark wrote:
Ah, thanks for the clarification--then we are back to square one it seems to me--either everyone has the right to a gun without restriction, or there are limitations that may not vary from state to state.

On 2013-04-14 12:25, mastermindreader wrote:

Quote:

On 2013-04-14 12:01, landmark wrote:
Ah, thanks for the clarification--then we are back to square one it seems to me--either everyone has the right to a gun without restriction, or there are limitations that may not vary from state to state.

Sort of, but not quite. The Supreme Court has held that reasonable regulations of firearms are constitutional. What those "reasonable regulations" are is the issue that constantly goes before the Court. They don't issue advisory opinions and only rule when there is an actual case or controversy before them. Very often their decisions will be limited to the specific facts before them in a given case.

That said, a State may grant its own citizens rights that are greater than those granted in the Federal Constitution, but NOT the other way around. (I.e., they may not have greater restrictions.)

The gun control lobby just wants to make sure that only white people can afford guns. At least that's the explanation when it comes to voter I.D.

In the 1960s, the NRA continued to support gun control, a wave which was fueled by the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, and the racial strife and violent uprisings in the nation’s urban centers.

The organization actively lobbied in favor of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which banned gun sales by mail, and enacted a system of licensing those people and companies who bought and sold firearms. Franklin Orth, then the executive vice president of the NRA, said that although certain aspects of the law “appear unduly restrictive and unjustified in their application to law-abiding citizens, the measure as a whole appears to be one that the sportsmen of America can live with.”

During that time, the NRA and conservative politicians such as California Governor Ronald Reagan supported gun control as a means of restoring social order, and getting weapons out of the hands of radical, left-leaning and revolutionary groups, particularly the Black Panther Party.

Responding to the perceived failures of the nonviolent civil rights movement, the Black Panthers took a more militant and uncompromising approach of the fallen leader Malcolm X. Led by figures including Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, the Panthers’ “by any means necessary” approach included a most aggressive gun ownership policy to protect their communities from police abuse.

Beginning in 1966, the Panthers carried out police patrols, in which they rushed to the scene of an arrest with their loaded weapons publicly displayed, and notified those being arrested of their constitutional rights. California state legislator Don Mulford introduced a bill to repeal the state law allowing citizens to carry loaded guns in public if they were openly displayed. Mulford had the Panthers in mind with this legislation.

On May 2, 1967, a group of Black Panthers protested the bill by walking into the California State Capitol Building fully armed. In response, the legislature passed the Mulford Act. And Gov. Reagan, who was a major proponent of disarming the Panthers, signed the bill into law, effectively neutralizing the Panther Police Patrols.

Yet, in the 1970s the NRA began to shift their direction rightward and actively lobby for gun rights. Their chief lobbyist, Harlon Carter, was a former border control agent and staunch supporter of gun rights. In 1977, Carter and his faction staged a coup within the NRA, against an establishment that wanted to shift away from gun control and crime in favor of conservation and sportsmen’s issues.

With the Black Panther Party and other left wing gun control foes out of the picture, the new hardline NRA feared the government would similarly take away their guns. Further, these predominantly white and conservative gun rights advocates in the NRA shared the Panthers’ distrust of the police.

If you're tempted to:



Post a funny message

Send or post an angry message

Be sarcastic or ironic

Criticize others in The Café

Post a message late at night

Post a message about a person that you wouldn't want them to see

Post a message full of spelling and grammar errors

Post a message that is inflamatory, or possibly offensive to others

Post an article you copied from another website.


Please think twice. Ask somebody else to talk you out of it. Ask a Café staff member.

These posts will be edited or deleted with no questions asked