advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 19, 2024 12:44PM
...if they don't wanna. Nyah, nyah!

Quote

The Utah bill, introduced as the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act,” was signed into law by Gov. Spencer Cox on January 31.

“The Legislature may, by concurrent resolution, prohibit a government officer from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of a federal directive within the state if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty,” the law states.

RollingEyesSmiley5

Quote

...Yet the push may stand in conflict with the US Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” which states federal laws take precedence over state ones. Robert Keiter, a law professor at the University of Utah’s SJ Quinney College of Law, said he was skeptical the Sovereignty Act was constitutional.

Gee, ya think?

The Republicans just impeached a cabinet member for the first time in a hundred years because he wasn't fulfilling the laws of the United States (just like his predecessors in that office). And the Utah Congressional delegation voted for impeachment unanimously.

But it's okay if they do it.

RollingEyesSmiley5
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Acer
Date: February 19, 2024 01:00PM
Lincoln wept.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Ted King
Date: February 19, 2024 01:10PM
Quote

“The Legislature may, by concurrent resolution, prohibit a government officer from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of a federal directive within the state if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty,” the law states.

Does the law define what these "principles of state sovereignty" are? I mean they are principles so it should be easy to elucidate them. Maybe something like, it's a principle of our state sovereignty that men have a right to polygamy.



e pluribus unum



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2024 01:11PM by Ted King.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: February 19, 2024 01:30PM
One more step down the path of the dissolution of the United States to the pages of history. It will one day be remember by a few scholars along with the Soviet Union, The Aksumite Empire, the Mississippians, and the Nabta Playa. Civilizations that get remembered tend to last 500+ years, I see little chance of that happening.



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The German word for contraceptive is “Schwangerschaftsverhütungsmittel”. By the time you finished saying that, it’s too late
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: SDGuy
Date: February 19, 2024 01:54PM
? - I thought the denizens of this forum were just fine with States ignoring the US Constitution...how is this really any different? The denizens here seem to be inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worse.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Acer
Date: February 19, 2024 01:58PM
Who's ignoring the Constitution again? The SCOTUS ignored the militia clause, relegating it to a quaint outdated custom, while elevating the other half to just after "You shall have no other gods before me."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: February 19, 2024 02:01PM
Quote
SDGuy
? - I thought the denizens of this forum were just fine with States ignoring the US Constitution...how is this really any different? The denizens here seem to be inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worse.

We're addressing "The Constitution" and a specific Supreme Court's spurious interpretation of the Constitution.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Ca Bob
Date: February 19, 2024 02:37PM
I think there is a question about whether a state or city is obligated to spend its own money and assign its own employees to the enforcement of some federal law such as rounding up and arresting people who are in the country illegally. That is different from the principle of federal supremacy, whereby the state of Texas has to give way when the federal government enforces its own laws about the border.

In practice, Los Angeles does not go out of its way to arrest the undocumented, but the city does not and cannot interfere with ICE agents doing their jobs.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 19, 2024 02:59PM
Quote
Ca Bob
I think there is a question about whether a state or city is obligated to spend its own money and assign its own employees to the enforcement of some federal law such as rounding up and arresting people who are in the country illegally. That is different from the principle of federal supremacy, whereby the state of Texas has to give way when the federal government enforces its own laws about the border.

This seems to go beyond that. The Utah legislature may (theoretically) now actively prohibit state employees (presumably, under threat of punishment - I don't know the deets) from doing anything to enforce a federal law/regulation/etc that the legislature doesn't like.

To use an extreme example, suppose someone is keeping slaves, which is specifically prohibited in the thirteenth amendment (except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted). Could some crazy future Utah legislature say, No governmental employee of Utah may participate in enforcing that, and if we find them doing so, we will punish that employee?

You know, the old States' Rights thing. When I see this kind of thing, I wonder what we're headed to.

Hopefully when Trump goes away, folks can take a deep breath and count to ten.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: SDGuy
Date: February 19, 2024 03:09PM
Quote
pdq
...To use an extreme example, suppose someone is keeping slaves, which is specifically prohibited in the thirteenth amendment (except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted). Could some crazy future Utah legislature say, No governmental employee of Utah may participate in enforcing that, and if we find them doing so, we will punish that employee?...

I'm pretty sure the denizens of this forum would be fine with that - all part of the whole "States can ignore parts of the Constitution that they don't like" thing that has been advocated here previously.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 19, 2024 03:13PM
I forget where the Constitution says that individuals are allowed to buy assault rifles. Or where it says a state cannot ask previous owners of such to register them.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 19, 2024 05:31PM
Quote
SDGuy
? - I thought the denizens of this forum were just fine with States ignoring the US Constitution...how is this really any different? The denizens here seem to be inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worse.

no kidding.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Acer
Date: February 19, 2024 05:35PM
Quote
Smote
Quote
SDGuy
? - I thought the denizens of this forum were just fine with States ignoring the US Constitution...how is this really any different? The denizens here seem to be inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worse.

no kidding.

This has been discussed at length, including at the link provided. Don't drop your glib bomb and consider the point won.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 19, 2024 05:37PM
Quote
pdq
I forget where the Constitution says that individuals are allowed to buy assault rifles. Or where it says a state cannot ask previous owners of such to register them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 19, 2024 06:06PM
Quote
Smote
Quote
pdq
I forget where the Constitution says that individuals are allowed to buy assault rifles. Or where it says a state cannot ask previous owners of such to register them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

…which for 200 years was reasonably interpreted as relating to militias - well-regulated ones at that.

Only recently did Scalia, Thomas, et al decide that the plain text meant anyone could buy any weapon, but that the plain text of the first part could be ignored.

In other words, it’s a matter of interpretation, and that interpretation has been radically changed in the last ~20 years or so.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: February 19, 2024 06:13PM
Quote
Smote
Quote
pdq
I forget where the Constitution says that individuals are allowed to buy assault rifles. Or where it says a state cannot ask previous owners of such to register them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There's that pesky word MILITIA again, just four words into the Amendment...

As posted last Friday in response to the specious, revisionist Lexington, Concord “history” posting.

“About 700 British Army regulars in Boston, under Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, were given secret orders to capture and destroy Colonial military supplies reportedly stored by the Massachusetts militia at Concord.”

“The first shots were fired just as the sun was rising at Lexington. Eight militiamen were killed, including Ensign Robert Munroe, their third in command.

Gage's plan was to avoid conflict by removing military supplies from Whig militias using small, secret, and rapid strikes.

Under the laws of each New England colony, all towns were obligated to form militia companies composed of all males 16 years of age and older…and to ensure that the members were properly armed. The Massachusetts militias were formally under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but militia companies throughout New England elected their own officers.



What "well regulated militias" do you suppose
our resident 2nd Amendment zealots belong to?

Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: SDGuy
Date: February 19, 2024 06:14PM
Quote
Acer
Quote
Smote
Quote
SDGuy
? - I thought the denizens of this forum were just fine with States ignoring the US Constitution...how is this really any different? The denizens here seem to be inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worse.

no kidding.

This has been discussed at length, including at the link provided. Don't drop your glib bomb and consider the point won.

? - how do you reconcile the different stances taken by denizens of this forum as NOT being either inconsistent or hypocritical?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 19, 2024 06:52PM
Quote
SDGuy
Quote
Acer
Quote
Smote
Quote
SDGuy
? - I thought the denizens of this forum were just fine with States ignoring the US Constitution...how is this really any different? The denizens here seem to be inconsistent at best, hypocritical at worse.

no kidding.

This has been discussed at length, including at the link provided. Don't drop your glib bomb and consider the point won.

? - how do you reconcile the different stances taken by denizens of this forum as NOT being either inconsistent or hypocritical?

One of these things is (definitely) not like the other.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 19, 2024 08:05PM
Quote
pdq
Quote
Smote
Quote
pdq
I forget where the Constitution says that individuals are allowed to buy assault rifles. Or where it says a state cannot ask previous owners of such to register them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

…which for 200 years was reasonably interpreted as relating to militias - well-regulated ones at that.

Only recently did Scalia, Thomas, et al decide that the plain text meant anyone could buy any weapon, but that the plain text of the first part could be ignored.

In other words, it’s a matter of interpretation, and that interpretation has been radically changed in the last ~20 years or so.

Show us a SCOTUS ruling from any period where it was ruled that firearm ownership and the right to carry is solely limted to militia duties. We'll wait.............



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2024 08:05PM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Tiangou
Date: February 19, 2024 08:14PM
Quote
Smote
Quote
pdq
Quote
Smote
Quote
pdq
I forget where the Constitution says that individuals are allowed to buy assault rifles. Or where it says a state cannot ask previous owners of such to register them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

…which for 200 years was reasonably interpreted as relating to militias - well-regulated ones at that.

Only recently did Scalia, Thomas, et al decide that the plain text meant anyone could buy any weapon, but that the plain text of the first part could be ignored.

In other words, it’s a matter of interpretation, and that interpretation has been radically changed in the last ~20 years or so.

Show us a SCOTUS ruling from any period where it was ruled that firearm ownership and the right to carry is solely limted to militia duties. We'll wait.............

U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Miller (1939): In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 19, 2024 09:23PM
"The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia."

interesting intrepretation. SCOTUS says that only firearms that are dangerous AND UNUSUAL can be banned. That came from Miller, and affirmed in Heller, and reaffirmed in Bruen. Sounds like the exact opposite.

If we accept your intrepretation, I can have fully automatic weapons because I am part of the militia. I can have everything the military has.

And since the US military has, or has used Glocks, Berrettas, 1911, H&K USPs, Sig P226s and 229s, and now Sig 320s, you can't take them away from me. Should I start in on long guns? Fully auto? And the military uses short barreled shotguns for door breaching, and SBRs for CQB, I can have those as well. Supressors? Sure. They have used these at least since Viet Nam.

SBRs, SBSs and supressors are in common use for lawful purposes, so the NFA is potentially in danger. The NFA registry proves it. I can dig up the NFA registry numbers, or you can. It is public data. Over 200K defines "common use" (Caetano 2016) and there are far more short barreled rifles or supressors than that. Pretty sure there are more than 200K SBSs as well.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Tiangou
Date: February 19, 2024 09:55PM
Quote
Smote
If we accept your intrepretation, I can have fully automatic weapons because I am part of the militia. I can have everything the military has...

You can have everything a man in a militia needs to be ready to join the military in time of war. Namely, one long gun.

And your right to that gun may be limited by reasonable regulations both because the Constitution demands no more and because the federal and state governments regulate the militias.

And your right to possess any more than that can be regulated in any way the federal or state governments see fit.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Mr645
Date: February 19, 2024 10:03PM
Which war does Biden start first ,World War 3 or a new Civil War



Biden/Putin 2024
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 19, 2024 10:10PM
Quote
Tiangou
Quote
Smote
If we accept your intrepretation, I can have fully automatic weapons because I am part of the militia. I can have everything the military has...

You can have everything a man in a militia needs to be ready to join the military in time of war. Namely, one long gun.

And your right to that gun may be limited by reasonable regulations both because the Constitution demands no more and because the federal and state governments regulate the militias.

And your right to possess any more than that can be regulated in any way the federal or state governments see fit.

Why weren't there regulations to any significant extent until 1934? The answer is that the US Government didn't believe they had the authority to regulate is what I have found. The NFA started it 14 decades after the 2nd was ratified. Why did they wait that long if it was no big deal? Obviously they dealt with firearms and crime SOMEHOW before they wrote the NFA. And it was written out of fear, btw.

And please educate us on where Miller says only 1 long gun. This should be good.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2024 10:18PM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Tiangou
Date: February 19, 2024 10:11PM
Quote
Smote
Why weren't there regulations to any significant extent until 1934?

Why do you lie whenever you're cornered?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 19, 2024 10:49PM
Quote
Tiangou
Quote
Smote
Why weren't there regulations to any significant extent until 1934?

Why do you lie whenever you're cornered?

please feel free to show universal federal firearms regulations prior to 1934. Well, besides the racist restrictons against non caucasians. If you want to go with those, remember, they weren't universal. Didn't effect white people. Nor were they federal. So, if you wan't to argue non-whites can't have firearms, go right ahead.

Still waiting on the one rifle restriction in the Constitution, or from a SCOTUS ruling. And a long gun or carbine, as well as a sidearm are basic load-out. So militia can't have pistols? Where does the Constitution, or SCOTUS ruling say that?



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Tiangou
Date: February 19, 2024 11:06PM
Quote
Smote
Quote
Tiangou
Quote
Smote
Why weren't there regulations to any significant extent until 1934?

Why do you lie whenever you're cornered?

please feel free to show universal federal firearms regulations prior to 1934.

Love the way you move those goalposts.

You didn't say "federal" and you didn't say "universal." (And "universal" is a @#$%& word without meaning in this context.)

FYI, prior to 1934:

[time.com]

Developed for trench warfare in World War I, the Tommy gun—a fully automatic weapon, though it could also fire semi-automatically—was made available for civilian purchase by inventor John Thompson’s Auto Ordnance company. With the end of the war the American military was no longer interested in the gun, and Thompson was desperate for new sales, so he began to aggressively market the gun to police forces and civilians. Yet as William Helmer concluded in his book The Gun That Made the Twenties Roar: “As a criminal’s weapon, the Tommygun was an unqualified success.” By the middle of the decade, sensational news stories of gangland violence involving the gun sparked calls for government action that led at least 32 states to enact restrictions on the gun and similar gangster weapons...

...laws restricting weapons carrying were enacted extending to guns, fighting knives, and clubs throughout the 1800s. These laws criminalized concealed weapons carrying in 50 states (including territories that later became states), open weapons carrying in at least 29 states, and even long gun carrying in at least 22 states. Second, at least 36 states laws passed laws that criminalized public weapons brandishing and display. Third, at least 47 states enacted laws providing for the licensing of some of these activities.

...these prolific and varied gun laws make clear that the default in American history was regulation and restriction for guns and other weapons, especially once individuals left their domiciles.




Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Tiangou
Date: February 19, 2024 11:09PM
Quote
Smote
Still waiting on the one rifle restriction in the Constitution, or from a SCOTUS ruling. And a long gun or carbine, as well as a sidearm are basic load-out. So militia can't have pistols? Where does the Constitution, or SCOTUS ruling say that?

History says that. Those of age for militia duty were responsible for purchasing one (and only one) long gun for service.
[en.wikipedia.org]

And the current SCOTUS has no credibility on the matter.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 19, 2024 11:48PM
Quote
Tiangou
Quote
Smote
Still waiting on the one rifle restriction in the Constitution, or from a SCOTUS ruling. And a long gun or carbine, as well as a sidearm are basic load-out. So militia can't have pistols? Where does the Constitution, or SCOTUS ruling say that?

History says that. Those of age for militia duty were responsible for purchasing one (and only one) long gun for service.
[en.wikipedia.org]

And the current SCOTUS has no credibility on the matter.

responsible for is a long long way from being restricted and limited to just one long gun.

So, find those federal laws, and show them to us. A news article or wiki page without the link to the actual law is just heresay and subject to bias. The actual legal ruling or law is wwhat matters.

"Show us a SCOTUS ruling from any period where it was ruled that firearm ownership and the right to carry is solely limted to militia duties. We'll wait............."

Miller does NOT say it is solely limited to. And that was 85 years ago. Long before the current SCOTUS justices were even out of high school. Do you question their credibility too?



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2024 11:49PM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Tiangou
Date: February 20, 2024 12:01AM
Quote
Smote
Quote
Tiangou
Quote
Smote
Still waiting on the one rifle restriction in the Constitution, or from a SCOTUS ruling. And a long gun or carbine, as well as a sidearm are basic load-out. So militia can't have pistols? Where does the Constitution, or SCOTUS ruling say that?

History says that. Those of age for militia duty were responsible for purchasing one (and only one) long gun for service.
[en.wikipedia.org]

And the current SCOTUS has no credibility on the matter.

responsible for is a long long way from being restricted and limited to just one long gun.

So, find those federal laws, and show them to us. A news article or wiki page without the link to the actual law is just heresay and subject to bias. The actual legal ruling or law is wwhat matters.

"Show us a SCOTUS ruling from any period where it was ruled that firearm ownership and the right to carry is solely limted to militia duties. We'll wait............."

Miller does NOT say it is solely limited to. And that was 85 years ago. Long before the current SCOTUS justices were even out of high school. Do you question their credibility too?

Not what I wrote.

Now you’re making up @#$%& that you’re pretending I wrote in this very thread.

Did you forget that people can read?



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 20, 2024 01:35AM
Quote
Tiangou
Quote
Smote
Quote
Tiangou
Quote
Smote
Still waiting on the one rifle restriction in the Constitution, or from a SCOTUS ruling. And a long gun or carbine, as well as a sidearm are basic load-out. So militia can't have pistols? Where does the Constitution, or SCOTUS ruling say that?

History says that. Those of age for militia duty were responsible for purchasing one (and only one) long gun for service.
[en.wikipedia.org]

And the current SCOTUS has no credibility on the matter.

responsible for is a long long way from being restricted and limited to just one long gun.

So, find those federal laws, and show them to us. A news article or wiki page without the link to the actual law is just heresay and subject to bias. The actual legal ruling or law is wwhat matters.

"Show us a SCOTUS ruling from any period where it was ruled that firearm ownership and the right to carry is solely limted to militia duties. We'll wait............."

Miller does NOT say it is solely limited to. And that was 85 years ago. Long before the current SCOTUS justices were even out of high school. Do you question their credibility too?

Not what I wrote.

Now you’re making up @#$%& that you’re pretending I wrote in this very thread.

Did you forget that people can read?

you are trying to answer anything but the orignal question, which was, and is

"Show us a SCOTUS ruling from any period where it was ruled that firearm ownership and the right to carry is solely limted to militia duties. We'll wait............."



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: February 20, 2024 05:23AM
SCOTUS only rules when a doctrine is called into question. For the roughly first 150 years after the constitution was ratified there was a common sense understanding. So no court had to rule as to the meaning of the second amendment. We now have a court interpretation of the mean, which is interesting as it goes against the current court's originalist doctrine. However, those originalist justices seem to apply that doctrine only to every amendment other than the second.



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The German word for contraceptive is “Schwangerschaftsverhütungsmittel”. By the time you finished saying that, it’s too late
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: gabester
Date: February 20, 2024 07:03AM
Look, ma, my gun is bigger than dad's!

You guys have lost the thread for the love of guns again.



g=
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 20, 2024 08:13AM
He literally gave you a Supreme Court ruling that you asked for, and you rejected it for no reason other than you didn’t like it directly refuting your point.

From “How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

Quote

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise.

…There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Why would you even consider this religious-objection-to-serving-in-a-militia clause if it wasn’t about militias?

Quote

… Gun rights and gun control were seen as going hand in hand. Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

For two hundred years, “bearing arms” meant serving in a militia, before Scalia et al, in a 5-4 decision (!) completely threw away this well-established interpretation, saying instead we must ignore the half of the amendment that grounds its context, and twist the meaning to individuals can own any weapon - any weapon - they want, and common-sense laws are now unconstitutional.

Said Chief Justice Warren Burger:

Quote

The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.

Burger, appointed by Nixon, was considered a conservative Chief Justice…and was, in the traditional sense of the word. Two hundred years of legal precedence and Constitutional interpretation should not be overturned, in a 5-4 ruling, just to meet a desired political end.

Forgive us if we feel the rulings of this SCOTUS, overturning such long legal precedence at their whim, represent an aberration in our history, and are likely to age poorly.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Mr645
Date: February 20, 2024 09:21AM
Didn't the 2nd apply to a requirement for all men age 16 or older be required to have a firearm ?



Biden/Putin 2024
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 20, 2024 09:51AM
Quote
Mr645
Didn't the 2nd apply to a requirement for all men age 16 or older be required to have a firearm ?

If you can find a citation that states such a requirement, I'd be interested, but what I found was that only ~ half of estates in 1774 had any sort of gun (and I would imagine hunting was far more common then).
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 20, 2024 03:19PM
Please show me the specfic sentence where Miller says solely limited to militia duties.

What was quoted was

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

can not say that it does is not the same as does not, and can not say that it does is not limiting.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2024 03:32PM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 20, 2024 04:46PM
You’re really stretching now.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 20, 2024 05:03PM
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. "

[www.law.cornell.edu]



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: February 20, 2024 05:08PM
Quote
Smote
Please show me the specfic sentence where Miller says solely limited to militia duties.

What was quoted was

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

can not say that it does is not the same as does not, and can not say that it does is not limiting.

Definist fallacy – defining a term used in an argument in a biased manner. The person making the argument expects that the listener will accept the provided definition, making the argument difficult to refute.

The wording and its meaning is clearly there, just not the specific sequence of words you're insisting must be there.

i.e. We the Supreme Court "cannot" rule "that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument" because the Second Amendment does not say that you may.

Moving the goalposts – argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

The salient point of this is that there IS a Supreme Court ruling which DOES actually declare that the 2nd Amendment IS about "well regulated militias" AND it DOES encompass restrictions on types of firearms and who may possess them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2024 05:38PM by DeusxMac.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 20, 2024 05:37PM
Quote
Smote
"United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54. "

[www.law.cornell.edu]

Yup. That was Scalia’s opinion, which was in contrast to all previous opinions, as well as conservative Justice Steven’s conclusion, the latter aligning with previous decisions.

But see, that’s what you can do when you can cobble together a narrowest-possible SCOTUS majority; you can say my interpretation is right, and my conservative, senior justice’s opinion is wrong, as well as long-held previous legal precedence.

Those are the rules the court plays by now; simply redefining long precedence in a 5-4 decision.

Calvinball, in the sheer exercise of political force.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Ombligo
Date: February 20, 2024 06:43PM
So what happens in the future (assuming there is one) when a different court rules that militia means militia, and restrictions are enforceable?

I somehow doubt that such a decision would be met with the respect of law.



“No persons are more frequently wrong, than those who will not admit they are wrong.” -- François de La Rochefoucauld

"Those who cannot accept the past are condemned to revise it." -- Geo. Mathias

The German word for contraceptive is “Schwangerschaftsverhütungsmittel”. By the time you finished saying that, it’s too late
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: February 20, 2024 07:49PM
Quote
Ombligo
So what happens in the future when a different court rules that militia labor means militia no child labor, and restrictions are enforceable?

I somehow doubt that such a decision would be met with the respect of law.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 20, 2024 08:25PM
Heller did NOT reverse Miller, because Miller never said it was limited solely to militia duty.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Tiangou
Date: February 20, 2024 10:30PM
Quote
Smote
Heller did NOT reverse Miller, because Miller never said it was limited solely to militia duty.

Miller said that any Constitutional justification for owning a firearm must have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

You keep injecting "limited solely to militia duty," in the wrong context. The Constitutional argument of the plaintiff when claiming a Constitutional right must allege a relationship to militia duty.

But there are other ways to provide a right. For example, a state may provide for the right to possess a licensed pistol. This is a lesser right. It's not a Constitutional right. And therefore there is no Constitutional argument protecting this right.

Thus, the Court didn't say in any fashion that there was one and only one right to bear arms and it was limited solely to militia duty. But they d@mned well did say that the Constitutional right was limited to the scope of potential militia duty.

And you've been continuously disingenuous on the matter from the start.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: sekker
Date: February 22, 2024 12:18AM
Well, this thread only validated the consistent mess once guns are raised as an issue.

I’m waiting to join the Gunner picket line demanding weapons on airplanes to prove that 2A is absolute!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: pdq
Date: February 22, 2024 10:01AM
I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from the SCOTUS or the gunners on this forum of how they can prohibit airline passengers from keeping and bearing arms there.

The current majority of the former mumbles something about sensitive places (such as, conveniently, courtrooms like their own), but it’s all Calvinball; ultimately, it’s just because we say so.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: Smote
Date: February 23, 2024 11:39PM
Quote
pdq
I have yet to hear a coherent explanation from the SCOTUS or the gunners on this forum of how they can prohibit airline passengers from keeping and bearing arms there.

The current majority of the former mumbles something about sensitive places (such as, conveniently, courtrooms like their own), but it’s all Calvinball; ultimately, it’s just because we say so.

Just because a law is passed, and not challenged, does not make it constitutional. They are PRESUMPTIVELY constitutional, and that presumption can be overcome in court with evidence. I don't think the TSA/aircraft issue has ever been challenged, and certainly not up to SCOTUS.

If you want to test this, crack open your wallet.

SCOTUS can't rule on something they haven't been asked to rule on, and then it is very specific questions that need to be answered. Sensitive places have NOT had a definitive ruling all by themselves, only mentioned in conjunction with other rulings.



"Defending your own life when in immediate danger to me is a basic right of each person. " Lemon Drop 11/17/2023 03:10 pm

Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1982. Digitized September 30, 2008.

From the NYSRPA v Bruen "Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach. . . . Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many. Step one of the predominant framework is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Second Amendment's text, as informed by history."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2024 12:27AM by Smote.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Heh. Utah passes law saying they don't need to follow Federal law
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: February 24, 2024 10:29AM
Quote
Smote
If you want to test this, crack open your wallet.

I believe this is referred to as "The Golden Rule"... Those with the gold make the rules.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 136
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020