I want to know how it is legal for states to create gun laws.
The tenth amendment reads:
" The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. "
And the 2nd amendment reads:
"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."
So.....
If you take those two together don't you get to the conclusion that individual states have ZERO fucking authority to create their own gun laws?
I don't get it. Most states force you to get permits to carry a gun, and all of them have restrictions on certain types of guns. How is this legal?
Why hasn't this been brought up at the Supreme Court before?
It would be like a law in Montana saying freedom of speech is null and void. Nobody would stand for that shit. They can't do it. They don't have the right.
Am I reading this incorrectly?
I'm all for states rights but they are crossing the fucking line here.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED covers the whole country, state laws are unconstitutional with regards to guns.
Why is this not happening?
John Gutierrez
jews
Brayden Hughes
>I want to know how it is legal for states to create gun laws.
it's not, those are illegal laws, good luck fighting those jews over it
Thomas Richardson
I see somone has woken up.
Levi Sullivan
fpbp
Levi Miller
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Bentley Wright
Not lawyer, but interested LEO fag. >you're for gun control hurr-sure no im not, idiots, gun control makes my life harder. Id rather just show up to already shot criminals than to deal with legal bullshit. >the keyword there is Criminals, dont break the law, wont be a problem.
But seriously, this question has come up more than once in my line of work..
Eli Richardson
Yep, they shill for gun control more than any other people. Gun control is basically their movement.
Caleb Collins
Presser v Illinois 116 U.S 252 (1886)
"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."
Julian Barnes
In Alaska we passed a law telling the Feds to fuck off. What now?
HB 69 Alaska House Bill
"An Act prohibiting state and municipal agencies from using assets to implement or aid in the implementation of the requirements of certain federal statutes, regulations, rules, and orders that are applied to infringe on a person's right to bear arms or right to due process or that implement or aid in the implementation of the federal REAL ID Act of 2005; exempting certain firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition in this state from federal regulation; declaring certain federal statutes, regulations, rules, and orders unconstitutional under the Constitution of the United States and unenforceable in this state; requiring the attorney general to file any legal action to prevent implementation of a federal statute, regulation, rule, or order that violates the rights of a resident of the state; and providing for an effective date."
Nicholas Hill
This. Is America's education system really as bad as they say? The bill of rights only applies to the federal government, it wasn't until the inclusion of the 10th amendment that made it apply to other government entities. You guys need to take a constitutional rights class or something.
Nathan Cruz
>someone actually bothered to cosplay Upotte
Landon Perez
No they don't.
You're spot on with the reasoning why.
Daniel Perry
The tenth amendment says that states can make laws as long as it isn't in conflict with the Constitution.
If you cant see that you're being wilfully ignorant.
Gun laws are in direct conflict with the 2nd amendment.
What are you saying anyway? The Constitution only applies to Washington DC?
Fuck off
Charles Rodriguez
Sorry, on my phone. Not the 10th, the 14th. Look up Barron v. Baltimore. It was the Supreme Court case that held the we are protected by the bill of rights only from the federal government.
P.s. Washington DC is a location, not an entity.
Nathan Williams
What fucking kike came up with that?
So Tennessee could make a law saying nobody here is allowed to speak English and if you do its punishable by castration and the Constitution doesn't matter because it's the state not the feds doing it?
That's kike logic
Kevin Thompson
No, that's how it WAS. Because we ratified the 14th, we are now extended those protections under all law, even state law. Our founding fathers intended to leave most everything up to the states. They had just fought an entire war over government power, they wanted as little government power as possible. Unfortunately, that's not how a nation works, so we were forced to amend our constitution to what it is today.
Cameron Barnes
>If you take those two together don't you get to the conclusion that individual states have ZERO fucking authority to create their own gun laws? not a lawyer, but that is my understanding. on a similar note, the federal gov't has no authority in state drug laws, Sessions is wrong on this and I'm concerned about it.
Cameron Davis
The federal government has no authority over state drug laws, but they do have the authority over the scheduling of these drugs.
The easiest example is marijuana. It is classified by the federal government as a schedule 1 drug, on the same level as methamphetamine and heroine. However, there are states that allow the consumption of marijuana. They can do this, because they changed their state laws regarding marijuana, however it is still a schedule 1 drug according to the federal government and can be prosecuted as such.
Our government is honestly a mess, and loop hole can be found just about anywhere if you look hard enough.
Andrew Thomas
14th Amendment: Equal Protection under the Law.
Many States enact laws regarding other amendments (So long as their protection is equitable or greater than the federal protections).
Additionally, rights have been, and still are, being suspended based on "Compelling government interests" through means that are 'Narrowly tailored" to the interest. This is known as the Means-Ends test; States are afforded this right because of the 14th amendment and 5th amendment.
I fucking hate it, but its the system based from Stare Decisis; Past Cases have determined this precedent and it won't stop anytime soon.
Blake Lewis
Methamphetamine is scheduled II my man
Lincoln Clark
Not Exactly,
Government possesses the Ability to regulate any interstate commerce: Though a state law, by itself, is considered an intra-state activity, state laws can have an affect on interstate commerce in the aggregate.
In Wickard v. Filburn (1942), SCOTUS ruled that farmers growing their own personal wheat supply during the great depression affected inter-state commerce. (If every farmer didn't sell all their wheat, the farmers who now did not need to buy wheat (using their own supply) lowered the market (inter-state level).
Good case to refer to is Gonzales V Raich (1970) where someone challenged the CSA about its ability to regulate intra-state matters (Maurijuana Laws) regarding the Compassionate Use Act in California.
Aiden Adams
>and its probably a dude
Nicholas Scott
Really? Damn, I had assumed it would be a schedule 1, though that's my fault for not double checking.
Going to skim these briefs. Thanks for the input.
Gabriel Bell
Not a Lawyer, but recently studied constitutional law as part of my degree.
States can pretty much regulate everything regarding an intra-state matter (i.e. without sufficient inter-state effects) that can pass a means-ends test. [States are ability to pass laws regarding the Moral, Health, safety or Welfare of the state - directly from 10th Amendment]. 5th and 14th work jointly to enforce our Federal Bill of Rights onto the states, but the states are owed due process with a Means-End test.
In essence, they can pass whatever laws they want so long as there is not a 1) a federal law that supersedes it 2) substantial Federal Regulation in that field where state law will be implemented 3) Explicitly preempted by the Federal Gov. 4) Conflict between state and Federal Law if the state law is implemented.
Jackson Sanders
The supremacy clause states that if a state government and the federal government come into conflict that the federal government wins every time.
So if a state makes a law that infringes on firearms it is unconstitutional because of the supremacy clause and that the 10th amendment says anything that the federal government isn't allowed to do no other government is allowed to do and the 2nd says the federal government isn't allowed to infringe on firearm rights.
Lucas Rogers
So how do these come into play regarding CCW and so-called gun laws?
According to the US Supreme Court it is unconstitutional to: > Require a precondition on the exercising of a right (Guinn v US 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939) > Require a license (government permission) to exercise a right (Murdock v PA 1943, Lowell v City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v MD 1965, Near v MN 1931, Miranda v AZ 1966) > Charge a fee for the exercising of a right (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966) > Delay the exercising of a right (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)
Hunter Perez
>but they do have the authority over the scheduling of these drugs.
No they don't. Literally not an enumerated power.
Evan Morgan
Statists sneak them in and then appoint judges that won't fight it because gun rights aren't sexy enough like how voting or education rights are. Even if the Supreme Court rules on something that affects something else it usually requires at least another lawsuit to reverse the unconstitutional law.
Aiden Carter
...
Mason Richardson
>I want to know how it is legal for states to create gun laws. It actually isn't.
Christian Reyes
Welcome to /k/ ;^)
James Sanchez
As i understand it, federal law is above state law, so the federal government could just overrule these state laws.
Luis Adams
Great. When do we get to ban hate speech in California?
Juan Kelly
Both the cases you cite were horribly reasoned and clearly in violation of the spirit of the Commerce Clause's intent to "make regular" trade between states as a response to what happened under the Articles of Confederation where states basically started trade wars with one another.
Nolan Morgan
Never. The first amendment protects "offensive speech."
Samuel Morales
Articles of Confederation America would have been a ride.
Luke Sanchez
Barron vs Baltimore
Josiah Nguyen
The 2A was incorporated by Heller and McDonald you complete fucking moron.
Julian Collins
Honestly I would trade the centralized mess of a country we've been sliding into more and more since incorporation under the 14th for a nation where maybe most of the states are authoritarian shitholes in exchange for a handful of libertarian free states.
Charles Torres
Thanks for what you do. What's the climate right now as a cop? Things getting brighter since trump?
Michael Gray
I have a friend who is a cop in Jersey City and he says it makes being pro-2nd Amendment hard sometimes and I can see why.
The Founding Fathers did not envision urban ghettos filled with irrational degenerates when they enshrined the right to bear arms. The gun crime created by niggers is the Democratic party's biggest asset in pushing for more authoritarian control. That's part of the reason why Democrats created those ghettos in the first place.
Chase Hughes
Its not legal. Don't follow the laws. My attorney has told be multiple times its unlawful for them to do these things constitutionally speaking. TRUMP SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIX THIS