Gun Control III

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
601

You seem to be confused as to who is in what “camp”. Only camp I am in is the one interested in answering this question:

Can states, via their inherent police powers and subject to their own constitutions, enact laws regulating the possession and use of arms?

The examples listed - whether good policy, bad policy, or whatever - demonstrate that the answer is yes, because states clearly believed they could pass such laws, and did.

That’s it. That is the meaning of listing the examples. They don’t help you - you took the position that statws didn’t regulate in this space prior to the 20th century. That is incorrect, they did. Did they enact fewer regulations? Sure. But that isn’t relevant to the point whether states had the legal authority to do so.

And with respect to Nunn v. Georgia, that doesn’t help you. That is a state court deciding the issue, and as such, the decision is subject to - that’s right - being overruled by the state legislature (by amending the state constitution). Point? States are in control for their own state - Georgia handled it their way, other states went a different way. It is up to the states to figure it out, and each has the in her power to do so.

*Further on this point, Nunn v. Georgia - which didn’t strike down concealed carry laws - was effectively overruled by Strickland v. State, in which the Georgia court held that the state may require persons to register their arms. But that is neither here nor there to the point - what matters is this is a further example of the state deciding how firearms will be regulated, through policy and law.

One thing you said I think is somewhat right - gun control has been more pervasive in the 20th century. That makes sense - with the risen of industrialization and the phenomenon of people moving in closer proximity, new and more prevalent public safety challenges came with them. Same policy reasons some state passed laws restricting the amount of gunpowder you could have at your residence - with people and property in such tight proximity, states felt the need to try and prevent accidents from affecting the public at large. That same policy and precedent applies to 20th century laws, as states had to deal with growing problems of a similar stripe.

Were those laws overreaching? Bad policy? Good policy? That is a topic for a different time. On my point I am trying to make is that the states could pass such laws, not whether they should have.

603
  1. You didn’t find anything “wanting” and you didn’t rebut anything. You wanted proof that states exercised their police powers to regulate the possession and use of arms, and you got it. To try and sidestep the proof, you try to deride it as “miniscule”. Tell me, Push, if your state enacted a loyalty oath and demanded that you surrender your guns if you don’t see a loyalty, would that be miniscule?

In any event, the issue isn’t whether a law is “miniscule” or not. What matters is whether it is/was traditionally understood that states could regulate in this area or not. The answer is yes. Without debate, yes.

Now, a state assembly may one year abolish all regulation. The next assembly may enact a huge wave of intrusive regulations. The next one major repeal. And so on. The point is the state can enact such laws, regardless of whether they are miniscule or extensive.

  1. State constitutions are state law. You seem to be horribly confused on this. As a result, the state can change its constitution to abolish the right or modify it. Texas did this - in the its 1869 constitution, it protected the right but qualified it “under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.” Texas has since changed its constitution to shrink the legislature’s role. Point? Even if the right is enshrined in the state constitution, it is subject to the state’s control. Saying “well, state constitutions recognized the right” doesn’t help you, because states have the right to change their constitution, which demonstrates my point all along - yes, states can legislate in this area.

  2. The problem is you have a version of history in your head that fits a helpful narrative, and you’re unwilling to change it in view of facts. No one is arguing that states had hugely pervasive or intrusive gun control laws prior to the 20th century. The only thing being argued is that states had the power to regulate in this space, regardless of how much they chose to do so . That is the history. It isn’t subject to revision.

You also seem to be stuck on an argument that is basically “well, states really didn’t have a lot of gun control laws, and because they didn’t, that means they couldn’t.” That is simply a logical fallacy. States could, as we have seen…no federal constitutional right precluded them doing so.

  1. It is also misguided to focus on what the federal government did in terms of regulating. It’s irrelevant to the problem/issue of whether states could or could not. I don’t care if Woodrow Wilson confiscated every gun in America during his tenure - that has zilch to do with whether states have the power.

Look, this is an area that traditionally was open for states to regulate, subject to its own police powers. In light of McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment applies, but there still is no good answer for what is permissible under public safety laws and what is not. The Constitution doesn’t tell us, but it beggars belief to think that the moment the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, basically all state laws regarding regulation of arms became instantly suspect when they had been perfectly permissible for nearly a hundred years prior.

604

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

  1. You didn’t find anything “wanting” and you didn’t rebut anything. You wanted proof that states exercised their police powers to regulate the possession and use of arms, and you got it. To try and sidestep the proof, you try to deride it as “miniscule”. Tell me, Push, if your state enacted a loyalty oath and demanded that you surrender your guns if you don’t see a loyalty, would that be miniscule?

In any event, the issue isn’t whether a law is “miniscule” or not. What matters is whether it is/was traditionally understood that states could regulate in this area or not. The answer is yes. Without debate, yes.

Now, a state assembly may one year abolish all regulation. The next assembly may enact a huge wave of intrusive regulations. The next one major repeal. And so on. The point is the state can enact such laws, regardless of whether they are miniscule or extensive.

  1. State constitutions are state law. You seem to be horribly confused on this. As a result, the state can change its constitution to abolish the right or modify it. Texas did this - in the its 1869 constitution, it protected the right but qualified it “under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.” Texas has since changed its constitution to shrink the legislature’s role. Point? Even if the right is enshrined in the state constitution, it is subject to the state’s control. Saying “well, state constitutions recognized the right” doesn’t help you, because states have the right to change their constitution, which demonstrates my point all along - yes, states can legislate in this area.

  2. The problem is you have a version of history in your head that fits a helpful narrative, and you’re unwilling to change it in view of facts. No one is arguing that states had hugely pervasive or intrusive gun control laws prior to the 20th century. The only thing being argued is that states had the power to regulate in this space, regardless of how much they chose to do so . That is the history. It isn’t subject to revision.

You also seem to be stuck on an argument that is basically “well, states really didn’t have a lot of gun control laws, and because they didn’t, that means they couldn’t.” That is simply a logical fallacy. States could, as we have seen…no federal constitutional right precluded them doing so.

  1. It is also misguided to focus on what the federal government did in terms of regulating. It’s irrelevant to the problem/issue of whether states could or could not. I don’t care if Woodrow Wilson confiscated every gun in America during his tenure - that has zilch to do with whether states have the power.

Look, this is an area that traditionally was open for states to regulate, subject to its own police powers. In light of McDonald v. Chicago, the Second Amendment applies, but there still is no good answer for what is permissible under public safety laws and what is not. The Constitution doesn’t tell us, but it beggars belief to think that the moment the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, basically all state laws regarding regulation of arms became instantly suspect when they had been perfectly permissible for nearly a hundred years prior.

  1. [/quote]

This post is a great argument for the ideas that written law is meaningless, and the only thing that matters is how much sizable minorities will take before defending what they view as their rights with force.

607

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Do you want me to take on the loyalty oath one?[/quote]

What would be the point? You have already conceded that the “absolute” right isn’t absolute - you ackowlegldged that a state could infringe on your right ro possess and use arms in instances where you’ve gotten into some kind of trouble with the authorities (despite not being yet guilty of any crime).

Let’s try it this way - the year is 1830. New York calls a constitutional convention and adds a constitutional provision saying every New Yorker must register their firearm with a certain local official, and each New Yorker was entitled to keep just one registered weapon inside his household. That is now part of the 1830 New York constitution.

Is that good and binding law in 1830? Yes or no? If not, why not?

610

There has been no moving of any goalposts, Push. You acknowledged that the state can infringe on the right in certain situations (I.e., when someone gets into some kind of trouble). But you think there are legal limits.

No problem, hence the hypothetical. Let’s see where you think the legal limits exist (ed). What legal limits (real ones, that applied at the time) does New York run into with their new constitutional modification? Can New York have such an constitutional provision and require its citizens to abide?

612

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Go back and reread what I posted at the beginning of this go-round.

I’m not going to repeat myself except to say gun rights are no different than speech, press or worship rights; they cannot bear regulation (infringement) until one has committed an offense. If you can’t license one to speak or worship freely you can’t license one to keep and bear arms.

That’s all there is to it. The Second Amendment and its state counterparts don’t play second fiddle because of “public safety” concerns.
[/quote]

I agree with this. The 2nd amendment isn’t about police officers having guns or guns for hunting. It is about 1 thing,and one thing only,bearing arms to protect from a tyrannical government. However,if the constitution is a living document,so to speak,we might be in trouble if we let some weakass change that part of it

613

That’s a non-answer. In the hypo I set up, what stops that New York constitutional provision for being enforceable?

If not, why not?

614

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s a non-answer. In the hypo I set up, what stops that New York constitutional provision for being enforceable?

If not, why not?[/quote]

how about we move ahead a little ? Say after the civil war? Its been established that no state law can supercede the federal governments laws. The whole states rights thing is pointless after that and a waste of time arguing for. The federal government has established its authority. Regardless of the original intention of the founding fathers,that’s the way it is now and won’t change. Arguing it should be different is beside the point. Precedents etc have been established. There is no going back

616

Also you say gun rights are no different than the right to free speech and freedom of religion. But that isn’t true, and there is generally a consensus they are not.

For example, most people concede (including you, unless I heard you wrong) that the state can take away your guns if you get into trouble - the obvious example is a restriction on felons possessing guns.

Does anyone believe a convicted felon’s right to political speech can be infringed after he gets out of jail? Does anyone believe the state can tell a convicted felon that he can’t worship how he chooses, and will incur penalties if he does?

No one thinks the state can infringe upon a felon’s right to do either of those. Not so with gun rights.

617

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Also you say gun rights are no different than the right to free speech and freedom of religion. But that isn’t true, and there is generally a consensus they are not.

For example, most people concede (including you, unless I heard you wrong) that the state can take away your guns if you get into trouble - the obvious example is a restriction on felons possessing guns.

Does anyone believe a convicted felon’s right to political speech can be infringed after he gets out of jail? Does anyone believe the state can tell a convicted felon that he can’t worship how he chooses, and will incur penalties if he does?

No one thinks the state can infringe upon a felon’s right to do either of those. Not so with gun rights.[/quote]

I imagine that plenty of people believe that a convicted felon should lose his rights of expression even after being released. I do believe that the state should be able to take away someone’s guns, but ONLY while that person is incarcerated. If one is too dangerous to possess tools with which to defend himself, he is too dangerous to be free.