Supreme Court declines challenges to gun laws

American said:

An example is not a norm. He's making blanket statements about Pro-2A people.

Click to expand...

1. He never said it was the "norm". He said "if more people..." which implies at least some Pro-2A people are that way, in his view.

2. You asked for proof that some (the same "some" from the above implication) Pro-2A people are inconsistent with their support for human rights. I figured the example I gave was exactly the kind of proof you were asking for.

3. I don't agree with his assertion that more people would be on-board with gun rights if the Pro-2A people were more consistent. So I didn't touch that part of it, and didn't mean to imply any sort of support for it.

clownboy said:

Even IF you are correct, your comments would only apply to the FEDERAL government. All state governments have long since signed onto all the federal Pharmacy laws. The constitution does indeed grant states the power to make such law.

Click to expand...

That is correct. I think the prohibition of drugs is just bad policy on its face, but the States would be within their Constitutional authority to implement such laws. The Fed, however, is way out of its jurisdiction with its current set of drug laws (which probably include many if the pharmacy laws you mentioned).

Binary_Digit said:

1. He never said it was the "norm". He said "if more people..." which implies at least some Pro-2A people are that way, in his view.

2. You asked for proof that some (the same "some" from the above implication) Pro-2A people are inconsistent with their support for human rights. I figured the example I gave was exactly the kind of proof you were asking for.

3. I don't agree with his assertion that more people would be on-board with gun rights if the Pro-2A people were more consistent. So I didn't touch that part of it, and didn't mean to imply any sort of support for it.

Click to expand...

He was talking out of his ass. Every Pro-2A person I know supports all of the Consitution.

Except for the times when a Conservative Court rules against the NRA "elites", who do NOT represent their membership with their views.
Of all places to have a common-sense gun law, I commend Texas.
This TX law should be made into a National Law toot sweet .

clownboy said:

Even IF you are correct, your comments would only apply to the FEDERAL government. All state governments have long since signed onto all the federal Pharmacy laws. The constitution does indeed grant states the power to make such law.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. When California legalized medical marijuana, the Federal government still came in and busted weed pharmacies for a while, even though the state said it was OK to have them. Where were the "limited Federal government crowd" on that one? But, if a state wants to do background checks before letting someone purchase a firearm, the "limited Federal government crowd" screams bloody murder. If you want limited Federal government, it must apply to ALL situations, not just those you support. I think it's amazing that those who scream the most for limited government are the very same people who support the prison industrial complex, which incarcerates more people than anybody else in the world, and who also support the war on drugs that puts nonviolent drug offenders in prison in such huge numbers. This, frankly, is Federal government out of control....... I hear crickets.

American said:

He was talking out of his ass. Every Pro-2A person I know supports all of the Consitution.

Click to expand...

Selectively interpreted to exclude things they don't like.

As an originalist I oppose federal judicial interference in the right of the states to regulate firearms.

Bob Blaylock said:

Neither does the one to whom you were replying.

Click to expand...

Binary_Digit said:

So what? There's no right to have children in there either. Here's a quick civics lesson for you: the Constitution doesn't spell out what rights the people have, it spells out what rights the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has (see the 9th and 10th Amendments). And the Federal government simply doesn't have the Constitutional authority to dictate what you can and cannot put into your own body. Why do you think they had to pass a Constitutional Amendment to ban alcohol? Because without it, the Federal government didn't have that authority. And they still don't.

So I repeat: people who are pro-2nd Amendment and pro-Drug War are inconsistent WRT rights of the People they do and do not support.

Click to expand...

The Constitution does spell out the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and explicitly forbids this right form being infringed. Even if a solid argument could be made for eliminating or restricting this right, government could not legitimately do so without first amending the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.

There is no right spelled out in the Constitution to abuse harmful drugs. There is no compelling social benefit to allowing such abuse. There is a great interest that society has in preventing such abuse, as much as reasonably possible.

There is no valid comparison here, between the right to keep and bear arms, and the “right” that you want to assert to abuse drugs.

I do agree with you that the federal government has no authority to regulate drug abuse, that this belongs to the states.

But there is no inconsistency in defending an explicit Constitutional right that strengthens those who exercise it, and strengthens society as a whole; while denying a “right” which is found nowhere in the Constitution, and the exercise of which is only harmful to those who exercise it, and to society as a whole.

Deuce said:

Selectively interpreted to exclude things they don't like.

Click to expand...

No, you include things you want, that no one who wrote the document ever dreamed of.

Deuce said:

This is your opinion. Do not try to pass it off as fact.

Click to expand...

Then, enlighten us, what is the 2A saying?

Let me guess, the second amendment means that the state can take away all guns?

I expect that, ultimately, the Supreme Court would allow all gun rights abolished in fairly rapid sequence.

joko104 said:

I expect that, ultimately, the Supreme Court would allow all gun rights abolished in fairly rapid sequence.

Click to expand...

depends who appoints the next few USSC justices. If Scalia, and Kennedy are replaced by more Kagans, I am sure Heller will be reversed or limited. If RBG and Breyer are replaced by more Alitos then the 2A might last a few decades longer. If RBG an Breyer are replaced with a couple more CTs then I suspect the idiotic HUGHES amendment and the NFA will be thrown out

CT is the biggest 2A supporter on the court

Not with the dozen or more Democratic senators who take turns it seems to help filibuster laws like Toomey/Manchin.

Right off the top, Baucus/Walsh, Heitkamp, Landrieu, Gillibrand,
PRYOR, Hagan, Begich, HARRY REID and Manchin come to mind as strong gun folks.

Several of them sustained the filibuster on T/M.
9 + 45 would be 54 Senators sustaining any filibuster.

Except RINOs like Kirk from my state are squishy, like Toomey on Toomey/Manchin.

Anyway, this Roberts Court is light years ahead of the Rehnquist politicizers, Sandra Day O'Connor now recants .

joko104 said:

I expect that, ultimately, the Supreme Court would allow all gun rights abolished in fairly rapid sequence.

Click to expand...

Bob Blaylock said:

There is no enumerated Constitutional right to drug abuse.

Click to expand...

Common mistake made by those who don't understand the document they quote nor the thoughts of our Founders on listing a few of the Citizen's Rights.

The Constitution doesn't limit the RIGHTS of Citizens, it limits the Federal Government primarily and the States is some part. Several Founders thought listing a few basic ones would have yahoos in later years claiming they were the only Rights Citizens have. It seems to be an attempt to limit a Citizens Rights in areas the CONs don't endorse to try and claim if it isn't spelled out in the Constitution it doesn't exist.

Next the 10th Amendment was a stroke of genius, the Founders knew times would change and a way to acknowledge this was needed.

Under the 10th A there should never be a need to create an amendment to ACKNOWLEDGE Citizen Rights, such as women voting, slaves as citizens, gays as equal in marriage and the law, but rather anything that limits Citizen Rights, such as Prohibition, MUST be an amendment.

But just because the Constitution doesn't list each and every Right a Citizen holds doesn't mean the Right doesn't exist.

Just my take on the War on Drugs- it is UnConstitutional. Equal treatment under the law. Cigarettes and alcohol are regulated, their use all by itself is not a crime. Cause harm while under the influence of alcohol and there are penalties. Alcohol is addictive, cigarettes are addictive, both cause bodily harm with even moderate use.

Drugs should be regulated and penalties by the Government should focus on actions that harm while under the influence.

If it doesn't pick my pocket or break my leg.... eace

Bob Blaylock said:

The Constitution does spell out the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and explicitly forbids this right form being infringed. Even if a solid argument could be made for eliminating or restricting this right, government could not legitimately do so without first amending the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.

There is no right spelled out in the Constitution to abuse harmful drugs. There is no compelling social benefit to allowing such abuse. There is a great interest that society has in preventing such abuse, as much as reasonably possible.

There is no valid comparison here, between the right to keep and bear arms, and the “right” that you want to assert to abuse drugs.

I do agree with you that the federal government has no authority to regulate drug abuse, that this belongs to the states.

But there is no inconsistency in defending an explicit Constitutional right that strengthens those who exercise it, and strengthens society as a whole; while denying a “right” which is found nowhere in the Constitution, and the exercise of which is only harmful to those who exercise it, and to society as a whole.

Click to expand...

Remember how I mentioned "See the 9th and 10th Amendments" in that post you quoted? Why didn't you do that before replying with this?

The 9th Amendment said:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Click to expand...

Do you understand what that means?

Binary_Digit said:

Remember how I mentioned "See the 9th and 10th Amendments" in that post you quoted? Why didn't you do that before replying with this?


Do you understand what that means?

Click to expand...

You seem to be trying to claim that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments support a claim to any and all “rights”. I think this is very obviously an extreme, hyperbolic interpretation of those Amendments. If there's a Constitutional “right” to abuse drugs, then what isn't a right? Clearly, any society has a need and a legitimate authority to impose rules and laws that are necessary to protect the well-being of that society and of the individuals that comprise it. Your interpretation of these Amendments would gut the very concept of any rule of law and order.

Bob Blaylock said:

You seem to be trying to claim that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments support a claim to any and all “rights”. I think this is very obviously an extreme, hyperbolic interpretation of those Amendments. If there's a Constitutional “right” to abuse drugs, then what isn't a right? Clearly, any society has a need and a legitimate authority to impose rules and laws that are necessary to protect the well-being of that society and of the individuals that comprise it. Your interpretation of these Amendments would gut the very concept of any rule of law and order.

Click to expand...

The federal government has not the proper power to regulate people using drugs-especially drugs produced in the same state as the consumers. the state governments do have that power though the rational basis for some drug laws is beyond comprehension by intelligent people given alcohol and tobacco. The federal war on drugs is based on the idiotic expansion of the commerce clause which was further mutated to reach say weed grown and used in say KY

TurtleDude said:

The federal government has not the proper power to regulate people using drugs-especially drugs produced in the same state as the consumers. the state governments do have that power though the rational basis for some drug laws is beyond comprehension by intelligent people given alcohol and tobacco. The federal war on drugs is based on the idiotic expansion of the commerce clause which was further mutated to reach say weed grown and used in say KY

Click to expand...

I do not disagree with you regarding the federal lack of authority to regulate drug abuse. Clearly, this is something that does not legitimately fall under any power delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, and therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, falls under the authority of the states.

My big disagreement with Binary_Digit is with his apparent attempt to claim that drug abuse is a “right”, comparable to the right to keep and bear arms, or to any other explicitly-enumerated Constitutional right. I find no basis for this claim, that cannot easily be expanded to cover almost any behavior, no matter how harmful, as also being equally a “right”.

Bob Blaylock said:

I do not disagree with you regarding the federal lack of authority to regulate drug abuse. Clearly, this is something that does not legitimately fall under any power delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, and therefore, per the Tenth Amendment, falls under the authority of the states.

My big disagreement with Binary_Digit is with his apparent attempt to claim that drug abuse is a “right”, comparable to the right to keep and bear arms, or to any other explicitly-enumerated Constitutional right. I find no basis for this claim, that cannot easily be expanded to cover almost any behavior, no matter how harmful, as also being equally a “right”.

Click to expand...

Maybe this will help: The People have the right to do ANYTHING THEY WANT unless it's prohibited by Constitutionally-compliant laws. It's as simple as that. Just because a right is "explicitly-enumerated" in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean other rights which are not enumerated don't exist. That's what the 9th Amendment clearly and plainly says.

Binary_Digit said:

Maybe this will help: The People have the right to do ANYTHING THEY WANT unless it's prohibited by Constitutionally-compliant laws. It's as simple as that. Just because a right is "explicitly-enumerated" in the Bill of Rights, doesn't mean other rights which are not enumerated don't exist. That's what the 9th Amendment clearly and plainly says.

Click to expand...

Actually, people have the right to do anything they want without Federal intervention. However, that does not necessarily apply to the states, which have the power to regulate what happens inside their own borders, as long as it does not violate the Constitution.

danarhea said:

Actually, people have the right to do anything they want without Federal intervention. However, that does not necessarily apply to the states, which have the power to regulate what happens inside their own borders, as long as it does not violate the Constitution.

Click to expand...

That's pretty much the same thing I said, isn't it? "The People have the right to do ANYTHING THEY WANT unless it's prohibited by Constitutionally-compliant laws." The phrase "Constitutionally-compliant laws" was supposed to encompass both Federal and State laws which are not unconstitutional.

Binary_Digit said:

That's pretty much the same thing I said, isn't it? "The People have the right to do ANYTHING THEY WANT unless it's prohibited by Constitutionally-compliant laws." The phrase "Constitutionally-compliant laws" was supposed to encompass both Federal and State laws which are not unconstitutional.

Click to expand...

It doesn't say in the Constitution that I have the right to manufacture heroin. Should I be allowed to manufacture heroin, as an unenumerated right?

danarhea said:

Actually, people have the right to do anything they want without Federal intervention. However, that does not necessarily apply to the states, which have the power to regulate what happens inside their own borders, as long as it does not violate the Constitution.

Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights does apply to the States so on the face of it the 9th Amendment may well confer a right to take any substance one chooses to.

danarhea said:

It doesn't say in the Constitution that I have the right to manufacture heroin. Should I be allowed to manufacture heroin, as an unenumerated right?

Click to expand...

Yes! Unless: 1. There is a law preventing the manufacture of heroin, and 2. That law is Constitutional.