Connecticut school shooting

[SteelCityMom]

Originally Posted by Atlanta Dan

It is an open question exactly what gun laws California can pass after Heller. "States rights" are trumped by the Second Amendment

For example, the 7th Circuit struck down an Illinois gun law last week that pretty much banned public carying of weapons on the basis that it violated the Second Amendment
http://blogs.findlaw.com/seventh_cir...itutional.html

With regard to federal "regulation" of abortion, that is based upon a constitutional right to privacy established by the Supreme Court that limits the power of State and local governments to regulate access to abortion - you may disagree with Roe v. Wade but is is just as much a binding opinion of the Supreme Court as the two Second Amendment opinions handed down in 2008 (Heller v. District of Columbia) and 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago) that for the first time, after more than 200 years of constitutional law, held the Second Amendment clearly created an individual right to bear arms and thereby barred significant regulation of handguns by DC and Chicago. Links to opinions below if you have some spare time and have not had the opportunity to read how the Second Amendment has been interpreted recently

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content.../06/07-290.pdf

MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS,
ET AL.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

State and local governments are not just subject to laws passed by Congress. They are subject to Constitutional limitations upon their actions established by the incorporation of certain rights articulated in the Bill of Rights under the original amendments to the Constitution (which only limited actions by the federal government) into the due process clause and equal protection clauses of the Fourteeenth Amendment, which limits the actions of state and local governments (limitatoins upon actions by the District of Columbia are diffeent becuase it is a creation of the fedral government).

Just as you may regard Roe v. Wade as unwise, some of us are not big fans of the Heller and McDonald opinions. But they are all binding Supreme Court precedent and are all based upon the same theory that places Constitutional restrictions upon the ability of State and local governments to regulate certain private conduct.

I will read into those, I hadn't heard about that.

And it's not that I'm against Roe vs. Wade necessarily, I just don't think the federal gov't should have a right to legislate that law (same with drug laws and marriage laws). So no, I doubt I'm going to be in favor of the Heller/McDonald rulings. I can't imagine that ric likes it either, even though it takes away a states right.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by SCMom

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f...1/cj26n1-6.pdf

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/f.../pdf/pa109.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2009...mestats_122109

I thought this thread was supposed to be a no picture zone

[SteelCityMom]

Haha...I don't usually go for picture things, but I saw this posted with sources, so I figured it was ok.

[SteelCityMom]

Besides, I was probably tipsy (ok drunk) and tired of FB BS when I yelled at Vis...so I'll go ahead and apologize for being a total bitch to him, and not thoughtfully arguing my point. Shit happens.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by SCMom

Besides, I was probably tipsy (ok drunk) and tired of FB BS when I yelled at Vis...so I'll go ahead and apologize for being a total bitch to him, and not thoughtfully arguing my point. Shit happens.

True that

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by SCMom

Besides, I was probably tipsy (ok drunk) and tired of FB BS when I yelled at Vis...so I'll go ahead and apologize for being a total bitch to him, and not thoughtfully arguing my point. Shit happens.

Jane, you ignorant $lut...

[ricardisimo]

Originally Posted by SCMom

Like I said, I'm for federal regulations in certain instances (slavery, civil rights, commerce and labor regulations, etc....powers already delegated by the US Constitution).

I am not for federal regulations on things like drug laws, same sex marriage, abortion...where federal law trumps state law. Or do you want the 10th amendment struck down as well? Should individual states not have a right to their own laws anymore, period? When the federal gun bans were lifted, I'm sure you were still glad that CA had strict gun laws. What if federal law trumped all that, meaning that CA no longer had the right to pass it's own gun regulations? I can't imagine you'd be in favor of that.

That's what I mean by being for states rights.

I guess my point is that we focus too much on states vs. Feds in this country. How do other countries get around this? Individual liberties shouldn't depend on those sort of tensions. Way too often all levels of government are in agreement.

[SteelCityMom]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

Jane, you ignorant $lut...

Dan, you pompous ass. Go ahead, Dan, live in your dark, lonely world.

[SteelCityMom]

Originally Posted by ricardisimo

I guess my point is that we focus too much on states vs. Feds in this country. How do other countries get around this? Individual liberties shouldn't depend on those sort of tensions. Way too often all levels of government are in agreement.

Well, unless you're 'murrica. Seems to me some states don't seem to agree with the federal gov't on things like marijuana laws, marriage laws, gun laws, abortion laws, etc.

Other countries don't have Constitutions defining individual states rights? That'd be my guess.

Like I said, I (usually) agree with federal laws when they are powers delegated to them by the Constitution...but that's where it ends for me.

[Atlanta Dan]

Originally Posted by SCMom

Dan, you pompous ass. Go ahead, Dan, live in your dark, lonely world.

Harsh words

I am putting you on my ignore list until sunrise tomorrow