The Supreme Court may have upheld the Constitutional rights of Washington residents to bear arms, but here in New York, good luck carrying concealed french fries, much less a firearm (unless you’re spectacularly wealthy, of course). In a city with…

mad saint jack on June 28, 2008 at 6:44
PMmad saint jack on June 28, 2008 at 6:49 PM

Understood…thank you. Kopels blog was good reading also.

scotusblog.com

mad saint jack on June 28, 2008 at 6:38 PM

kool thanks, Was preemmtion in their constitution from the begining?

When was that anyway?

jerrytbg on June 28, 2008 at 5:48 PM

April

snowflakesinhell.com

They tried the same ban in the 80s and it was also knocked down.
California has preemption only the state can pass gun control not the cities.

NotCoach on June 28, 2008 at 8:14 AM

On second reading of this post I have to say in this quote

How often do the legislature’s of any given state do what the people want them to do?
Az’s right, you’re living in a dream world.

jerrytbg on June 27, 2008 at 10:18 PM

I wasn’t refering to any future gun legislation, it was mearly an obsevation that can widely be seen in many states….they vote themself’s pay increases over the objections of their respective employers for one… example, Jundal’s got his hands full right now. etc etc etc
I further suspect that Calif SC knocking down SF gun ban was some time ago although I can’t confirm that yet, but I will look into it. In any case, I stand firm in the belief that most politwitions are corrrupt and we need to clean house… where’s Nancy…yea right…what a farce.

mad saint jack on June 28, 2008 at 1:33 PM

I stand corrected. When was that anyway?

NotCoach on June 28, 2008 at 8:14 AM

now I can add twit to the list! lol

First, no court has ever struck down any states gun laws that I am aware of.
NotCoach on June 28, 2008 at 8:14 AM

You would be correct if you said no court has struck down a law on 2nd Amendment grounds (until now).

The Utah Supreme Court did strike down the U of Utah ban of guns on campus. (I don’t know if that was law or campus policy).

As National law part of the Brady bill was found unconstitutional, the part that required local sheriffs to do the background checks. This was mainly a moot point as instant background check (NICS) was already due to replace the old system.

There are also some local examples. New Orleans was hit with an injunction after they went door to door confiscating weapons.

Calif judges, (most), Are NOT going to shoot down any gun laws
jerrytbg on June 27, 2008 at 10:18 PM

The Cal Supreme Court did strike the San Fran Gun Ban (twice) because of the state preemption law. And the city of Philadelphia had it’s new gun laws stopped with an injunction (state preemption).

How often do the legislature’s of any given state do what the people want them to do?
Az’s right, you’re living in a dream world.

jerrytbg on June 27, 2008 at 10:18 PM

This is not hard to understand. First, no court has ever struck down any states gun laws that I am aware of. That means for guns the legislative process has been the only law of the land. And since the legislative process has not banned weapons in most places what exactly makes you think they will all of the sudden start doing so? We still elect our legislators, right? Places that have strictor gun laws have exactly what the people deserve by electing who they elect.

Second, nothing in the Heller ruling grants states anymore power than they have already been exercising. In fact, it denies some areas a tool they have been using, which is an outright ban. Why this is so hard for you or any other paranoid twit around here to understand is beyond me.

Now, if the courts start doing something totally unprecedented and start reinstating laws from the bench (not just overturning them) or make negative rulings that take away rights granted through the legislative process, than we can talk.

Good stuff and I agree totally. Is there a court case out there somewhere, where these ideas are expressed. Maybe something in the Congressional record that you know of? I know there are many quotes by the founders that relay this message.

It’s good and logical of itself (self evident) and the sheer common sense aspect of it requires no additional support. But if there is a reference for it I’d like to have it.

Maxx on June 27, 2008 at 12:17 PM

A short summation of the sentiments of the founders themselves from The Federalist Papers some of which were pointed out by labrat, who cited the most compelling ones, in this History BA’s assesment.

-Barack Obama

I wonder if Stevens & Breyer ever read these quotes!

jerrytbg on June 27, 2008 at 10:31 PM

No kidding, sometimes I wonder if they are even reading the same constitution that I am.

labrat on June 27, 2008 at 10:25 PM

I wonder if Stevens & Breyer ever read these quotes!

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.”
– Adolph Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations 403 (Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens trans., 1961)

NotCoach on June 27, 2008 at 7:21 PM
NotCoach on June 27, 2008 at 7:54 PM

And to think I was going to apologize for goating you awhile back.
Not gonna happen now.
This is an absolutely asinine statement.

Name a single state that has had a gun law struck down by any court in your lifetime.

AB was referring Calif judges.
Calif judges, (most), Are NOT going to shoot down any gun laws…….but ANTI-GAY laws and referenda they will.
The will of the people!!!!!!!! Yea right..

How often do the legislature’s of any given state do what the people want them to do?
Az’s right, you’re living in a dream world.

http://www.snowflakesinhell.com

AZ_Redneck on June 27, 2008 at 7:45 PM

I am sorry, but you are reading too much into it. States have been making laws for decades without guidance from the courts and these laws are based on what people want since they elected the people who made them. Here in Michigan I can get a CCW as long as I am not a felon or mentally retarded. That will not change any time soon. And we got our CCW law a few years back because the people of Michigan demanded it.

Scalia stated quite clearly that this ruling only strikes down outright bans and does nothing else. He did not call for more laws or say what laws should be passed. He said that what most states do now is constitutional. Now people can argue about whether he’s right about that or not. But there simply will not be a flurry of new gun laws across the country.

The laws that currently exist in any state are the will of the people.

kind of nice … in a story book sort of way. i don’t mean to be a smart alec or disrespectful, but while that has been the ideal, it’s never been true. there is always some prick that wants to tell you how to live.

The opposite is actually likely to happen as Chicago’s ban and New York’s de facto ban are now going to be challenged in court as well.

i disagree. the respective ‘ban’ might go down, but wait for the registration and quibble over what arms are … and the new ones … ’sensitive areas’ and ‘unusual weapons’. watch those lists grow …

i see someone posted that DC is quibbling over possession semi-automatics already.

You may not like Scalia’s deference to many of the already existing laws, but he does put an end to outright bans and laws that don’t allow you to have working firearm in your home either.

couple of years, you won’t be able to legally take one out of your home

“If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for the law.”
— Winston Churchill

i am no fan of Winston … but my respect began waning a while back. i will always live like their is a 2nd Amendment