• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. Supreme Court declines new gun regulations challenge

Heh, to reiterate....yes, I am a Democrat and pretty darn liberal.
 
Lursa said:
Can you list any gun laws, proposed or imagined, that would keep guns out of inner cities? Aside from national confiscation...and then the inner cities would STILL have guns.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about which gun laws work and which don't. We're talking about if the government has a right to regulate arms.

Do you think that people should be able to carry a firearm on a plane... where any bullets fired are likely to lead to a explosive decompression? If not, then you need to reconcile the constitutional basis for governments ability to regulate arms on a plane, but not on the ground.
 
Mithros said:
We're not talking about which gun laws work and which don't. We're talking about if the government has a right to regulate arms.

Do you think that people should be able to carry a firearm on a plane... where any bullets fired are likely to lead to a explosive decompression? If not, then you need to reconcile the constitutional basis for governments ability to regulate arms on a plane, but not on the ground.
Click to expand...

That is a fallacy.
 
Mithros said:
We're not talking about which gun laws work and which don't. We're talking about if the government has a right to regulate arms.

.
Click to expand...

Um, and how would the govt 'regulate' arms? Using harsh language?
 
Mithros said:
We're not talking about which gun laws work and which don't. We're talking about if the government has a right to regulate arms.

Do you think that people should be able to carry a firearm on a plane... where any bullets fired are likely to lead to a explosive decompression? If not, then you need to reconcile the constitutional basis for governments ability to regulate arms on a plane, but not on the ground.
Click to expand...

One Body politic of the People already has literal recourse to our Second Amendment.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Dropping the "gun nuts" disparaging moniker, it still comes down to the point that a large segment of particular gun owners have voiced enough potential violence should anyone threatened their guns rights, that they now represent a clear and present danger to society as a whole.
Click to expand...

Just those that would try and take Rights away. ;) The rest of society is perfectly safe.
 
Winchester said:
I personally would like to see a lawsuit challenging the need for a CCW permit in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, since requiring CCW only confirms that lawful people will act lawfully, and renders no other tangible benefit to individuals or socieity at large.
 
Summerwind said:
On a private piece of property where you were invited to utilize it.
Click to expand...
Why, then, did we have to comply with other OSHA requirements, since we were operating on private property? A private contractor hired by a private person for work don on private property...yet we had to have various licenseure regardless. Why this one, but not that one?
 
Gun rights don't really exist in Jersey in the first place.
 
I believe State governors, as commanders in chief of that which is expressly declared as Necessary to the security of a free State, should not get a free pass.
 
danarhea said:
'Ya know, I am kind of in the middle regarding this issue. I do feel that background checks should be necessary so that criminals and crazy people cannot legally purchase a gun. However, once passing a background check, I very strongly feel that carrying a gun is a constitutional right, per the second amendment. I believe the members of the Supreme Court are being cowards in avoiding this issue. And since this is the Roberts court, I am somewhat surprised, not to mention deeply disappointed.

Discussion?

Article is here.
Click to expand...

this is fairly consistent with recent Supreme Court decisions.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Just those that would try and take Rights away. ;) The rest of society is perfectly safe.
Click to expand...
`
Wrong. Ideologically extreme men with guns will shoot to kill another man who took an oath to follow the law. Society just saw an example of the gun totting people at the Bundy ranch. There is much to fear when ignorance has a gun in its hand.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Wrong. Ideologically extreme men with guns will shoot to kill another man who took an oath to follow the law. Society just saw an example of the gun totting people at the Bundy ranch. There is much to fear when ignorance has a gun in its hand.
Click to expand...

we have much to fear when ignorant fearful gun hating people demand that pimps in office enact their fears into laws
 
notquiteright said:
And yet that distrust of their fellow citizens is EXACTLY why many 'gun nuts' demand ARs and high cap mags- because they fear an armed biker gang attacking their house... :doh
Click to expand...


is there a point to that stupidity other than you feel a need to whine about conservatives?
 
Paxaeon said:
`
Dropping the "gun nuts" disparaging moniker, it still comes down to the point that a large segment of particular gun owners have voiced enough potential violence should anyone threatened their guns rights, that they now represent a clear and present danger to society as a whole.
Click to expand...

well that is moronic given that there is no evidence of that happening when stupid gun laws are passed. The government has been less responsible with guns than the citizenry-example, Waco and Ruby Ridge
 
Mithros said:
Gun rights advocates try to make a principled argument, but when it comes down to it; they believe regulation is needed, they just think it's a lot less than what a gun control advocate would want. That is a policy debate. Turning it into a constitutional question means that there is no policy debate; the government cannot restrict arms.
Click to expand...

Just curious, because I'm trying to understand your argument here.

So would you suggest that if someone is in favor of slander and libel as laws then any disagreement over regulated speech...such as a law making it illegal to speak negatively about the President in public...would have to be from a "policy debate" perspective to them as opposed to a "constitutional debate"? That the logic or reasoning behind why you may support certain regulation as constitutional is irrelevant...that simply put, regulation of ANY kind, to ANY degree, for ANY reason instantly regulates ALL regulation, for ANY reason, to ANY degree into the "policy" sphere as opposed to "Constitutional" sphere?

Allow unwarranted search and seizure in any situation, and then you can't consider any other matters of serach and seizure as "unconstitutional"?

Allow any exception to equal protection and then any other exceptions to equal protection are a matter of policy, not of constitutionality?
 
Zyphlin said:
Just curious, because I'm trying to understand your argument here.

So would you suggest that if someone is in favor of slander and libel as laws then any disagreement over regulated speech...such as a law making it illegal to speak negatively about the President in public...would have to be from a "policy debate" perspective to them as opposed to a "constitutional debate"? That the logic or reasoning behind why you may support certain regulation as constitutional is irrelevant...that simply put, regulation of ANY kind, to ANY degree, for ANY reason instantly regulates ALL regulation, for ANY reason, to ANY degree into the "policy" sphere as opposed to "Constitutional" sphere?

Allow unwarranted search and seizure in any situation, and then you can't consider any other matters of serach and seizure as "unconstitutional"?

Allow any exception to equal protection and then any other exceptions to equal protection are a matter of policy, not of constitutionality?
Click to expand...

If someone was for slander and libel laws then they'd be arguing that the first amendment was not absolute. Someone couldn't logically argue that a restriction on free speech was unconstitutional because the first amendment is absolute while also supporting libel and slander laws. So Zyphlin, I think I agree with the point you're making here.

There's a lot of nuance and I make no guarantees that I'm actually capable of communicating it.. but here goes:

One argument made in favor of the SCOTUS striking down the NJ CC law is that the Second Amendment says that the government can't make laws restricting firearms, ergo the law is unconstitutional. My point, is that the court couldn't have done this without either striking down all firearms laws or else nationalizing a set of firearm regulations from the bench. It's difficult to see how you could deny the state the right to licence conceal carry permits while simultaneously allowing the state to ban guns on planes, schools, stadiums, or in the vicinity of public figures. The state either has the authority to place restrictions on firearms or it doesn't. The court doesn't get to judge if a law is a good idea or a bad idea. They don't get to make policy. The court can't strike down a law as unconstitutional without striking down every other law derived from the same authority unless the court first authors a constitutional test.

So that leaves more or less three choices. One could be in favor of an absolute reading of the second amendment which means that all restrictions are out the window (and I was arguing that literally no one is in this camp). One could also come up with a new constitutional test which balances the safety of the state with the rights of the people, (I don't think anyone has taken this route). Therefore, failing those; one is left with arguing that NJ is constitutionally allowed to enforce their cc laws; but the laws should be changed.

Hopefully I didn't butcher that too badly.
 
Well, I see your point. If your argument is that "they can't make this law because the government can't restrict firearms in any way", then yes...it is an issue of inconsistent application of a point.

HOWEVER....

You seemed to be suggesting that if you agree the state can regulate firearms in specific instances, for specific reasons then you MUST agree that in general they constitutionally can regulate firearms in ANY instance, for ANY reason.

Which is why I brought up slander.

That is a SPECIFIC instance, for a SPECIFIC reason, that limits freedom of speech. Going with how it appeared you were presenting your argument, agreeing with Slander meant then that you couldn't claim ANY instance of free speech being revoked, for ANY reason, was "unconstitutional".

There are concievable arguments suggesting why the competing rights of individuals allows for a legitimate ability on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in certain fashions (such as on an air plane) while at the same time suggesting there are NOt legitimate factors on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in other fashions.

Just like there are concievable arguments suggesting there are times where restriction of speech can be constitutional, while acknowledging there are other times where the lack of such factors mean it ISN'T constitutional.

That is not a "policy" debate, but a debate still centered around the notion of constitutionality.

I'm unsure, unless you can quote them, that there are individuals on the forum using the sole argument that "The Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms" who have also been advocating for regulations on firearms.
 
Paxaeon said:
`
In my humble opinion; SCOTUS dodged the issue because a decision either way, will cause civil unrest, especially if it ruled against the gun nuts.
Click to expand...

What is a "gun nut"?
 
Zyphlin said:
Well, I see your point. If your argument is that "they can't make this law because the government can't restrict firearms in any way", then yes...it is an issue of inconsistent application of a point.

HOWEVER....

You seemed to be suggesting that if you agree the state can regulate firearms in specific instances, for specific reasons then you MUST agree that in general they constitutionally can regulate firearms in ANY instance, for ANY reason.

Which is why I brought up slander.

That is a SPECIFIC instance, for a SPECIFIC reason, that limits freedom of speech. Going with how it appeared you were presenting your argument, agreeing with Slander meant then that you couldn't claim ANY instance of free speech being revoked, for ANY reason, was "unconstitutional".

There are concievable arguments suggesting why the competing rights of individuals allows for a legitimate ability on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in certain fashions (such as on an air plane) while at the same time suggesting there are NOt legitimate factors on the part of the government to constitutionally limit firearm use in other fashions.

Just like there are concievable arguments suggesting there are times where restriction of speech can be constitutional, while acknowledging there are other times where the lack of such factors mean it ISN'T constitutional.

That is not a "policy" debate, but a debate still centered around the notion of constitutionality.

I'm unsure, unless you can quote them, that there are individuals on the forum using the sole argument that "The Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms" who have also been advocating for regulations on firearms.
Click to expand...

I was arguing that even the people who say that Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms actually want the government to regulate firearms. They just don't like a particular form regulation. If people actually thought it was a good idea for everyone to have guns, we'd be passing them out in downtown Detroit.

From my personal position, i'd say that the second amendment gives the state broad regulatory authority. They can't prevent people from obtaining weapons unless they're a threat to public safety, but the state can place some of the burden of proof of competence on the individual. I think this also jives with most of the gun owners I know. They're very serious about the right to carry their weapon(s) safely, and don't take kindly to people carrying who don't know what the hell they're doing.
 
Mithros said:
I was arguing that even the people who say that Government can not pass any regulation of any kind on firearms actually want the government to regulate firearms. They just don't like a particular form regulation. If people actually thought it was a good idea for everyone to have guns, we'd be passing them out in downtown Detroit.

.
Click to expand...

This is still a ridiculous and unfounded example. Not remotely based in reality. Why arent people handing out cell phones? Food? Bikes to promote energy savings? Money? Those are all great ideas, esp. for those in poverty in inner cities or places like Detroit.
 
Mithros said:
From my personal position, i'd say that the second amendment gives the state broad regulatory authority. They can't prevent people from obtaining weapons unless they're a threat to public safety, but the state can place some of the burden of proof of competence on the individual. I think this also jives with most of the gun owners I know. They're very serious about the right to carry their weapon(s) safely, and don't take kindly to people carrying who don't know what the hell they're doing.
Click to expand...

What other rights do we have to demonstrate 'competence' for before we can use them?

You make gun owners sound very elitist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom