Lawsuit in Kansas could Shatter all Federal Gun Control Laws

[J-BAR #18287]

Posted in the news today:

 

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/11/22/this-lawsuit-could-shatter-all-federal-gun-laws/

 

I hope this is not considered political since it does not promote an agenda or person, It simply reports on the possible consequences of a Kansas law. I will bow to the Moderators decision if it is considered inappropriate.

 

But, WOW!

[Tyrel Cody]

Wouldn't that be wonderful

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

Uh... I'm thinking that this could be a double-edged sword... certain states might decide that they can impose their own gun control laws to suit their own desires.

[Reuben McCoy Rankin # 34239]

WSe can only hope.

[Tyrel Cody]

Uh... I'm thinking that this could be a double-edged sword... certain states might decide that they can impose their own gun control laws to suit their own desires.

Don't they already?

[Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967]

They do... but to date the Feds have limited what they can do.

[Rooster Ron Wayne]

Uh... I'm thinking that this could be a double-edged sword... certain states might decide that they can impose their own gun control laws to suit their own desires.

+1

Kalifornia then could ban all guns.

And then our brothers and sisters stuck in that Country would really be #$%^&@ (screwed)

[J-BAR #18287]

If a state passes a law that restricts or nullifies one of the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights, what happens? For instance, if a state tried to force a person to testify against themselves, or limit freedom of speech, what would be the consequences?

 

I mean, I don't know. I thought that the Bill of Rights extended to the States, and that no state could pass a law that took those rights away. But I may be wrong. I'm not a lawyer.

 

But if I am right then neither the state nor the Federal government could "infringe" the right to bear arms.

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

That's a long stretch...and I'm not certain that I'd prefer leaving my 2nd Amendment rights to my state government. I think I'd rather see national concealed carry reciprocity, and maybe even Federal preemption of State gun laws. My state is not doing me any favors.

 

LL

[Major E A Sterner #12916]

Mine either

[Alpo]

I just went and reread the Bill of Rights. To make sure my memory was working.

 

Amendment One says CONGRESS SHALL NOT...

 

That's the only one that limits the Feds.

 

The next seven, Two through Eight each say THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

 

It does not say "Secretary of War will not quarter soldiers". It says "soldiers WILL NOT BE quartered". It does not say "federal authorities will not search". It says "people and their possessions WILL NOT BE searched without a warrant.

 

This means to me that the Florida National Guard can not quarter soldiers in my house. That the Pensacola Police Department can't search my house without a warrant.

 

Numbers Two through Eight are not putting restrictions on the Federal government. They are putting restrictions on ALL GOVERNMENTS - federal, state or local.

 

The way the Second reads, it does not say just that the Feds cannot infringe. It says that the state of Texas, or Cobb County Georgia, or the giant metropolis of Two Egg Florida cannot infringe.

[Tinpan McGurk]

I think they will likely lose this. Precedent is the Dred Scott case of 1857, still cited as precedent today (US v State of AZ regarding immigration laws) ie Federal Law trumps (no pun intended note the small "t" lol) state law and since the precedent goes back so far it is unlikely to be overturned

 

I ... agree with Hardpan if Federal Law no longer overrides State law then every time a non-Bill of Rights leaning state legislature is in control they can implement some radical regulations... case in point where Federal Law overrode local law in DC where it was illegal to have a gun in one's home for self-defense..this law was overturned by the Supreme Court ruling that citizens had a right to defend their homes so the DC law was ruled unconstitutional..and a big decision in favor of the Bill of Rights...

 

If the new president elect is able to appoint new justices that are more conservative in their views the fact that Fed. law is the overriding rule could work in favor of those that support the Bill of Rights..of course the inverse could also true in the next election.. this is pointed out by the writer of the article...

 

Ironically the Dred Scott case was a decision upholding the fugitive slave law..

 

Tinpan McGurk

[Tennessee Stud]

I just went and reread the Bill of Rights. To make sure my memory was working.

 

Amendment One says CONGRESS SHALL NOT...

 

That's the only one that limits the Feds.

 

The next seven, Two through Eight each say THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

 

It does not say "Secretary of War will not quarter soldiers". It says "soldiers WILL NOT BE quartered". It does not say "federal authorities will not search". It says "people and their possessions WILL NOT BE searched without a warrant.

 

This means to me that the Florida National Guard can not quarter soldiers in my house. That the Pensacola Police Department can't search my house without a warrant.

 

Numbers Two through Eight are not putting restrictions on the Federal government. They are putting restrictions on ALL GOVERNMENTS - federal, state or local.

 

The way the Second reads, it does not say just that the Feds cannot infringe. It says that the state of Texas, or Cobb County Georgia, or the giant metropolis of Two Egg Florida cannot infringe.

 

 

I was kinda waitin' fer you... you bein' such a thoughtful... but surly, poster. That's not a knock... but a complement... although... I bet you will take it wrong. But it don't matter.. you ain't never liked me, noways.... Slowpoke

 

You might want to look out front of this. It is just a... glimpse...

 

OF THINGS TO COME...

 

Nothin'... is over... best get yore mind's right. I am kinda skeert.

.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

These two guys were convicted of Federal firearms violations and they are resting their hopes on the USSC overturning a law that has been in effect and enforced since 1934. Good luck.

[Tennessee Stud]

One more thang....

 

Some fella.. indicated he was gonna.... shoot up his amma stash.

 

I would... NOT... recommend that jest yet.....

 

Ya'll best spread out....

 

Too many local Negan's out there. But, you know... I am not sure what to do...

 

The world... is not....

 

ts

[Sedalia Dave]

 

Uh... I'm thinking that this could be a double-edged sword... certain states might decide that they can impose their own gun control laws to suit their own desires.

Yep, Right now all that stands between some states and an outright ban of all firearms inside their borders is the US Constitution and federal law.

 

What if this causes Heller vs DC to be revisited and possibly overturned.

[Wolfgang, SASS #53480]

I do beleive that the support of the second ammendmen of the constitution will be a prime consideration of the new administration in Washington.

[Rye Miles #13621]

I do beleive that the support of the second ammendmen of the constitution will be a prime consideration of the new administration in Washington.

You betcha and that's why I voted for the incoming POTUS!

[Subdeacon Joe]

Uh... I'm thinking that this could be a double-edged sword... certain states might decide that they can impose their own gun control laws to suit their own desires.

 

 

Except that McDonald incorporated the 2nd against the states. Also, in 1943 SCOTUS took the Bill of Rights off the political table:

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

[J-BAR #18287]

The Founders pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor.

 

Those who are reluctant to enforce the Founders' original intentions MIGHT have to decide whether or not to move to a different state.

 

...bit of a difference there...

[Pat Riot]

Bottles, my good man, get these thirsty folks a drink. They sound a bit parched.

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

I just went and reread the Bill of Rights. To make sure my memory was working.

 

Amendment One says CONGRESS SHALL NOT...

 

That's the only one that limits the Feds.

 

The next seven, Two through Eight each say THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.

 

It does not say "Secretary of War will not quarter soldiers". It says "soldiers WILL NOT BE quartered". It does not say "federal authorities will not search". It says "people and their possessions WILL NOT BE searched without a warrant.

 

This means to me that the Florida National Guard can not quarter soldiers in my house. That the Pensacola Police Department can't search my house without a warrant.

 

Numbers Two through Eight are not putting restrictions on the Federal government. They are putting restrictions on ALL GOVERNMENTS - federal, state or local.

 

The way the Second reads, it does not say just that the Feds cannot infringe. It says that the state of Texas, or Cobb County Georgia, or the giant metropolis of Two Egg Florida cannot infringe.

 

Alpo:

 

There is a world of difference between stating the general principle that the States are bound by the Bill of Rights, and applying that concept in the real world.

 

My State has banned the sale of AR-15s, AK-47's, and any clones of the same; they have banned half of the handguns made on "safety" grounds; they have banned on-line and mail sales of ammunition and reloading components; they have implemented a demanding concealed carry permit system.

 

Even the US Sup Ct seems to agree that States and municipalities may regulate the sales of certain firearms for good cause, or may ban the carrying of weapons in certain areas, or the imposition of other restrictions which they will review on a case-by-case basis.

 

So, who will test each of these restrictions? Who will finance the litigation? Who will risk arrest?

 

So far, in MA, there is no sign of the NRA or any other firearms group taking up the flag.

 

I can't imagine that that situation will improve if suddenly there are no more Federal gun laws. Similarly, if the Sup CT (the Scalia Supreme Court) interprets the 2nd to permit certain state regulation, what are the chances of them finding Federal regulation to be unconstitutional?

 

We live in interesting times.

 

LL

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Could - yes

 

Will - doubtful

[Seldom Seen #16162]

Uh... I'm thinking that this could be a double-edged sword... certain states might decide that they can impose their own gun control laws to suit their own desires.

 

This has been happening for a long time in both States and Cities. Look at New Jersey and Chicago, New York City.

 

If a state passes a law that restricts or nullifies one of the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights, what happens? For instance, if a state tried to force a person to testify against themselves, or limit freedom of speech, what would be the consequences?

 

I mean, I don't know. I thought that the Bill of Rights extended to the States, and that no state could pass a law that took those rights away. But I may be wrong. I'm not a lawyer.

 

But if I am right then neither the state nor the Federal government could "infringe" the right to bear arms.

 

The Devil is in the details or wording. The Supreme Court has ruled that Freedom of Speech is a conditional right. For example yelling FIRE in a crowded building such as a movie theater when there is not one will get you in a lot of trouble.

 

The Lower Courts have upheld placing "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership. Remember the ban on high capacity magazines that was passed during the Clinton years.

 

I think they will likely lose this. Precedent is the Dred Scott case of 1857, still cited as precedent today (US v State of AZ regarding immigration laws) ie Federal Law trumps (no pun intended note the small "t" lol) state law and since the precedent goes back so far it is unlikely to be overturned

 

I ... agree with Hardpan if Federal Law no longer overrides State law then every time a non-Bill of Rights leaning state legislature is in control they can implement some radical regulations... case in point where Federal Law overrode local law in DC where it was illegal to have a gun in one's home for self-defense..this law was overturned by the Supreme Court ruling that citizens had a right to defend their homes so the DC law was ruled unconstitutional..and a big decision in favor of the Bill of Rights...

 

If the new president elect is able to appoint new justices that are more conservative in their views the fact that Fed. law is the overriding rule could work in favor of those that support the Bill of Rights..of course the inverse could also true in the next election.. this is pointed out by the writer of the article...

 

Ironically the Dred Scott case was a decision upholding the fugitive slave law..

 

Tinpan McGurk

 

Actually United States vs.Miller (1939) 307 U.S 174 is the only case that challenged the NFA. Since Miller was in hiding as result of testifying against fellow gang members and could not afford a lawyer the Government arguments before the Court were not challenged. (Miller was found shot to death in April, before the decision was rendered.)

 

Yep, Right now all that stands between some states and an outright ban of all firearms inside their borders is the US Constitution and federal law.

 

What if this causes Heller vs DC to be revisited and possibly overturned.

 

In Heller the Court left open the possibility of banning certain types of firearms. This is one reason Heller was not a big of a win as Gun Supporters and the NRA would have us believe.

 

Other than McDonald the Court has refused to take up any other gun cases.

 

Keep in mind it will be several years before this case reaches the Supreme Court by which time some of the elderly liberal Justices may either retired or died so the Court may well have a much more Conservative and less activist attitude. (Let's hope Ginsburg forced to retire soon as she is becoming senile).

[Dubious Don #56333]

Interesting read.

I can forsee a problem if this actually happens. You think some of the States are anti-gun now? LOL. On the other hand, I have a different take.

 

If the Second Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from legislating that RIGHT, then it also is a prohibition on the STATES. ALL of those screwy gun laws would likewise go buh-bye!!!

 

Read and understand the Fourth (search & seizure) Fifth (rights to counsel, self incrimination) Tenth (limits on Federal power) Fourteenth (Citizenship, due process, equal protection clauses) then go and read the jillions of case laws on those and then you'll see what a can of worms something like this really would be.

[Mud Marine,SASS#54686 Life]

The Second Amendment is now considered "incorporated". That's that!