Poll - Would You Favor A Federal Off-limits Law

Discussion in 'Firearm Related' started by Phil1979, Feb 12, 2017.

  1. Yes

    12 vote(s)
    48.0%
  2. No

    13 vote(s)
    52.0%
  1. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,493
    600
    113
    that stated the following?


    "No state shall enact any location as off-limits to citizen carry of firearms other than jails, prisons, dedicated mental institutions, and courtrooms that are in session."
     
  2. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    No, but only because I don't believe in increasing the power of the Federal government when the States themselves are perfectly capable of doing the same thing.

    EDIT: Nor do I believe that the federal government is in any way 'smarter' or 'more qualified' to determine what should or should not be 'off limits', it could just as easily enact a law that says any arms may not be allowed on any property not under the direct control of the carrier.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017

  3. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    I said yes because this would not "increase" Federal power in the least. This level of Federal meddling is already authorized by the 14th Amendment.
     
  4. a_springfield

    a_springfield Well-Known Member

    3,391
    125
    63
    I picked yes
    Yes, only because it would clear up the campus carry thing. No, because the federal government already has a law on guns carrying.
     
  5. Craftsman

    Craftsman Well-Known Member

    2,973
    242
    63
    Let's reason this out:

    Second Amendment obviously grants Federal preemption to ALL firearms laws while simultaneously restricting them to non-infringing structures.

    Fourteenth Amendment restricts states from infringing.

    Ninth Amendment demands strict scrutiny.

    Sure this is a great idea.

    Reality: Liberals lie and use the courts to push their agendas. Until we cure this disease, HELL NO!!!
     
  6. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    :lol: A "cure" he says. :lol:
     
  7. Phil1979

    Phil1979 Member Georgia Carry

    11,493
    600
    113
    Containment management at best.


     
  8. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    Interesting, which section of the 14th do you believe is applicable?
     
  9. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,537
    683
    113
    almost

    I think the 2nd Amendment itself authorizes Congress to use the supremacy clause to enact "enabling legislation" that gives teeth to 2A rights, and thus limits the police power (and public policy choices that the legislatures of various states would like to make, favoring gun control).

    The problem with the wording proposed above is that I can think of some other places and circumstances where people probably don't have a "constitutional right" to carry a loaded, ready-to-shoot firearm, and thus THOSE are places where States retain their traditional "police power" to pass laws about crime, dangerous activities, and other laws about the health, morals, and safety of their citizens.

    But in principle, YES, Congress can and should start bitch-slapping states that clearly violate our gun rights, even if the only violation is a really long list of off-limits locations, even for pistol carry permit holders.
     
  10. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
     
  11. gunsmoker

    gunsmoker Lawyer and Gun Activist

    27,537
    683
    113
    The U . S. Supreme Court ruled, correctly, in 2010 (McDonald v. City of Chicago) that the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms was one of those fundamental rights that the 14th Amendment forbid state and local governments from infringing upon.


    QUOTE from N.Y. Times article:

    The important point was a broad one, Justice Alito wrote: that the Second Amendment, like other provisions of the Bill of Rights, must be applied to the states under the 14th Amendment.

    ...

    The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, originally restricted the power of only the federal government. The Supreme Court later ruled that most of the protections of the Bill of Rights applied to the states under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the post-Civil War amendments.

    Many constitutional scholars had hoped that the court would use Monday’s decision, McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, to revise its approach to how constitutional protections are applied to, or “incorporated against,” the states.
    ...Five justices wrote opinions in the case, with many pages examining the history of the Second and 14th Amendments. The justices in the majority said that history supported both finding a fundamental individual right and applying it to state and local laws."


    Cite: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html
     
  12. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48

    [1] Privileges or immunities
    The Privileges and Immunities Clause prevents discrimination against people from out of state, but only with regard to basic rights. The Court uses a two-part test to determine if the Privileges and Immunities Clause has been violated. First, the Court looks to see if a law discriminates against people from out of state regarding fundamental rights (e.g. protection by the government of the enjoyment of life, and liberty, the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety). Second the Court focuses on whether the state is justified in the discrimination. It examines if there is a substantial reason for the difference in treatment, and if the discriminatory law has a substantial relationship to that reason. For example, the Court has asked: "Does the distinction made by Montana between residents and nonresidents in establishing access to elk hunting threaten a basic right in a way that offends the Privileges and Immunities Clause?" ... The court held it did not, because hunting is a recreational sport, which is outside the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. If the court had found that recreation and sports were fundamental rights, it would have still had to examine whether the state had a compelling interest (protecting elk herds from being over-hunted), and whether the law was designed to address that problem.

    I'll note that certain activities are quite legal to grant to a state citizen and not to an out-of-state visitor such as the right to vote in state and local elections or to run for public office. Or, to hunt elk as the USSC noted above.

    [2] Due Process
    The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization. This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy. Any location deemed unauthorized by a state legislature has, by definition, been enacted with legislative authorization.

    [3] Equal Protection -
    All citizens of the state are protected equally, no one by virtue of race, religion, hair color, former condition of servitude or state of citizenship is affected in any way differently than any other citizen of the state or any other state.


    Again, my point is that this addresses no problem that a state may not address itself as was done with the Driver's License Compact.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  13. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    Are you saying NY, CA, MA, CT, NJ and GA will all agree to not enact....

    ....any location as off-limits to citizen carry of firearms other than jails, prisons, dedicated mental institutions, and courtrooms that are in session?
     
  14. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    I didn't say they Will, I said they Could.
    In my humble estimation it isn't the Federal Government's place to solve problems that can be handled at the state level. Did the FedGov mandate that states Will accept any other state's driving license?
     
  15. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    The States could have handled McDonald amongst themselves, but they didn't.

    The States could have handled Loving amongst themselves, but they didn't.

    The States could have handled Brown amongst themselves, but they didn't.

    Will the States stop infringing on 2nd Amendment carry rights as posed by the OP? I'm saying they won't, and the constitutional infrastructure is already in place to make them stop.
     
  16. Fallschirmjäger

    Fallschirmjäger I watch the watchers

    12,835
    63
    48
    Assuming that you are referring to Loving v. Virginia, Virginia applied a law (the Racial Integrity Act of 1924} unequally to it's citizens, denying the right to marry to some while protecting that right to others. The USSC ruled that such laws were a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

    I'm not sure where you think Virginia's law had any effect on the marriage of an interracial couple in Hawai'i or any other state until they crossed the state line into Virginia.
     
  17. Mrs_Esterhouse

    Mrs_Esterhouse Swollen Member

    11,831
    505
    113
    At the time, many other states had anti-miscegenation laws. They were invalidated after incorporation of the Loving decision via the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

    I am not a 14th Amendment proponent. It destroyed state sovereignty, but it is a fact of American life that is going nowhere. Not using it for 2nd Amendment purposes does nothing to remove it. I say we might as well employ its use whenever and wherever 2nd Amendment infringements are found among the states.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2017
  18. Malum Prohibitum

    Malum Prohibitum Moderator Staff Member

    67,050
    1,428
    113
    Southern states (democrats) rendered the Fourteenth Amendment necessary due to their oppression of an entire class of citizens following the Civil War, denying them even the most basic and fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms.
     
  19. Wegahe

    Wegahe NRA Instructor

    3,259
    524
    113
    I voted yes to the question. I would much rather have an SC decision tying the 14A to the 2A. If the government passes a law the Government can repeal the law. If the SC makes the decision it's much harder to overturn.
     
  20. phaed

    phaed Active Member

    9,360
    2
    38
    smart. the rest of you obviously haven't learned from the other "unintended consequences" from fed power grabs before.