SCOTUS, New York Right to Carry

[Choid]

I don't believe it ever has as of yet, but really, all three of those ought to be incorporated against the states and should have been 150 years ago.

So, without disputing that all of the bill of rights should be incorporated, ex 9 and 10, from a historical perspective, do you think it is correct to assume that the writers of the 14th were really targeting the 4th, 5th and 6th (and maybe 8th) for incorporation, with the others being more ancillary in their thinking?

 

[_Windrider_]

So, without disputing that all of the bill of rights should be incorporated, ex 9 and 10, from a historical perspective, do you think it is correct to assume that the writers of the 14th were really targeting the 4th, 5th and 6th (and maybe 8th) for incorporation, with the others being more ancillary in their thinking?

It’s really an all or nothing equation.

 

[Choid]

It’s really an all or nothing equation.

Of course, but I was trying to get his thoughts into the thinking around it since I have never been to law school and thus know the outcomes more than anything about the debates.

 

[pmclaine]

Yet they didn't include any provision applying it to the states in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Oversight or deliberate? I defer to you.

Their feeling was every citizen was a soldier. A member of the militia.

Every state citizen was in the militia quartered in their home.

Where you run into concern is when you build a strong central govt with a strong standing army with only tenuous connection to the locale it is stationed. State militias were made of family members and neighbors loyal to their states.

Think how strong this feeling was in 1861. Officers were more inclined to join the side of their state rather than it being a USA/CSA issue.

Should we do away with a standing army?

No, but we should do more to engage citizens in military matters or otherwise engage them with defense.

Having less than 1% with skin in the game makes "adventurism" easier and gives the govt greater monopoly of military trained people.

 

[_Windrider_]

Their feeling was every citizen was a soldier. A member of the militia.

Every state citizen was in the militia quartered in their home.

Where you run into concern is when you build a strong central govt with a strong standing army with only tenuous connection to the locale it is stationed. State militias were made of family members and neighbors loyal to their states.

Think how strong this feeling was in 1861. Officers were more inclined to join the side of their state rather than it being a USA/CSA issue.

Should we do away with a standing army?

No, but we should do more to engage citizens in military matters or otherwise engage them with defense.

Having less than 1% with skin in the game makes "adventurism" easier and gives the govt greater monopoly of military trained people.

I mean if we get down to brass tax everything but the navy is unconstitutional

 

[Choid]

Their feeling was every citizen was a soldier. A member of the militia.

Every state citizen was in the militia quartered in their home.

Where you run into concern is when you build a strong central govt with a strong standing army with only tenuous connection to the locale it is stationed. State militias were made of family members and neighbors loyal to their states.

Think how strong this feeling was in 1861. Officers were more inclined to join the side of their state rather than it being a USA/CSA issue.

Should we do away with a standing army?

No, but we should do more to engage citizens in military matters or otherwise engage them with defense.

Having less than 1% with skin in the game makes "adventurism" easier and gives the govt greater monopoly of military trained people.

How does this have any relation to the text of the third amendment?

 

[pmclaine]

How does this have any relation to the text of the third amendment?

Oh God this fuckstain again...

Quartering of soldiers as a federal prohibition but never incorporated to states.....

A. Self Explanatory

B. Never experienced in USA except by members of CSA, who lacked standing.

 

[pmclaine]

I mean if we get down to brass tax everything but the navy is unconstitutional

But in this world necessry.

Washington was ready to agree to a limit on the standing military......as long as the enemy was limited to one third that number.

 

[Choid]

Oh God this fuckstain again...

Quartering of soldiers as a federal prohibition but never incorporated to states.....

A. Self Explanatory

B. Never experienced in USA except by members of CSA, who lacked standing.

It's never been incorporated because it has never come up, but he asked you about the founders, and incorporation wasn't a concept for nearly another hundred years. And you don't answer why didn't the founders apply the third, or any other amendment, to the states.

 

[7.62willdo]

I think your main point is that the United States was totally different before the civil war and by extension, before the Fourteenth Amendment. And anyone who has been to law school would certainly agree with that (which is, once again, why I brought up Barron v. Baltimore. which is the Supreme Court making the same point that you are making).

I mean if we get down to brass tax everything but the navy is unconstitutional

“Brass tacks”

 

[_Windrider_]

“Brass tacks”

hey now. the iphone does what the iphone does.

 

[_Windrider_]

But in this world necessry.

Washington was ready to agree to a limit on the standing military......as long as the enemy was limited to one third that number.

agreed, so passing an amendment should be a no brainer right? just because we all agree its necessary doesnt mean we shouldnt make it legitimate.

 

[SQ54]

Ignorance abounds!

Amazon.com: The Founders' View of the Right To Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment: 9780962366475: Young, David: Books

Amazon.com: The Founders' View of the Right To Bear Arms: A Definitive History of the Second Amendment: 9780962366475: Young, David: Books

www.amazon.com

or

http://secondamendmentinfo.com/Founders'%20View/index.html

edited: added links

 

[pmclaine]

It's never been incorporated because it has never come up, but he asked you about the founders, and incorporation wasn't a concept for nearly another hundred years. And you don't answer why didn't the founders apply the third, or any other amendment, to the states.

Oh God this fuckstain again.....

Because the Founders were designing a Constitution for the Central Govt. States made their own.

They never really expected states to give up their freedom in various ways....income taxes, losing direct appointment of senators, agreeing to abide by letter agency BS.

The Founders expected the individual states to maintain their sovereignty.

Freedom is hard though, they knew it because they fought hard for it, they failed in thinking the states would maintain it.

 

[Choid]

Oh God this fuckstain again.....

Because the Founders were designing a Constitution for the Central Govt. States made their own.

They never really expected states to give up their freedom in various ways....income taxes, losing direct appointment of senators, agreeing to abide by letter agency BS.

The Founders expected the individual states to maintain their sovereignty.

Freedom is hard though, they knew it because they fought hard for it, they failed in thinking the states would maintain it.

No, sorry. There is no possible way to argue "oh, the founding fathers just figured that wouldn't happen so they didn't worry about it because these were good guys" when 1) Madison tried to have some of the amendments applied to the states but his attempt was rejected, and 2) they were all great students of the cycles of government and were attempting to write a document that would endure as others had not. It's just a shit argument. It was clearly intentional to leave a lot of this in the hands of the states.

 

[_Windrider_]

No, sorry. There is no possible way to argue "oh, the founding fathers just figured that wouldn't happen so they didn't worry about it because these were good guys" when 1) Madison tried to have some of the amendments applied to the states but his attempt was rejected, and 2) they were all great students of the cycles of government and were attempting to write a document that would endure as others had not. It's just a shit argument. It was clearly intentional to leave a lot of this in the hands of the states.

This I agree with which is why there are only a select number of enumerated powers. But in my ignorance I had no idea that they hadn’t intended the bill of rights to apply to the states. I always thought everyone had to comply with constitution and that no law, state or federal was above it.

 

[Choid]

This I agree with which is why there are only a select number of enumerated powers. But in my ignorance I had no idea that they hadn’t intended the bill of rights to apply to the states. I always thought everyone had to comply with constitution and that no law, state or federal was above it.

FWIW, I think the answer is that the there were anti-federalist factions who basically said "we are not getting into this fucking thing without 1) a bill of rights restricting the feds, and 2) no restrictions on the states because we want to be able to make the rules we want, especially concerning the establishment of churches." I don't think it was that anybody was pro quartering troops in houses, but that they were pro having vastly different laws in different states and not being told they couldn't. It is unreasonable to think that there were just oversights and fuggedaboutits given the amount of thought and negotiation that went into all of this.

FWIW, I think that even though we benefit a lot from incorporation, we would be a more peaceful political union if things like gun laws and abortion laws were determined at the state level almost exclusively.

 

[_Windrider_]

FWIW, I think the answer is that the there were anti-federalist factions who basically said "we are not getting into this fucking thing without 1) a bill of rights restricting the feds, and 2) no restrictions on the states because we want to be able to make the rules we want, especially concerning the establishment of churches." I don't think it was that anybody was pro quartering troops in houses, but that they were pro having vastly different laws in different states and not being told they couldn't. It is unreasonable to think that there were just oversights and fuggedaboutits given the amount of thought and negotiation that went into all of this.

FWIW, I think that even though we benefit a lot from incorporation, we would be a more peaceful political union if things like gun laws and abortion laws were determined at the state level almost exclusively.

Abortion laws yes, all gun laws are an infringement. We would all be better served if our judges stopped being activists.

 

[Choid]

Abortion laws yes, all gun laws are an infringement. We would all be better served if our judges stopped being activists.

I agree about gun laws in principle, but I would trade idiots in CA being allowed to disarm themselves to the max in return for them fucking off when it comes to other states.

 

[Downzero]

Abortion laws yes, all gun laws are an infringement. We would all be better served if our judges stopped being activists.

Incorporating any of the bill of rights against the states would have been considered "activist" in 1900.

 

[_Windrider_]

Incorporating any of the bill of rights against the states would have been considered "activist" in 1900.

If done by the courts sure. But passing an amendment is hardly activist considering what it takes to make that happen. Interpreting a law in favor of one’s party or views in lieu of the law is activism.

Activism is all we have now. No one follows the law. It’s all about party lines. Especially at the federal level.

 

[Downzero]

If done by the courts sure. But passing an amendment is hardly activist considering what it takes to make that happen. Interpreting a law in favor of one’s party or views in lieu of the law is activism.

Activism is all we have now. No one follows the law. It’s all about party lines. Especially at the federal level.

We passed an amendment--the 14th. It contained a clause, the privileges or immunities clause, that was supposed to incorporate all of the bill of rights against the states. The courts ignored it anyway and refused to do so. Are you okay with none of the bill of rights applying to the states? Because that's the literal state of history before what you call "activist."

 

[_Windrider_]

We passed an amendment--the 14th. It contained a clause, the privileges or immunities clause, that was supposed to incorporate all of the bill of rights against the states. The courts ignored it anyway and refused to do so. Are you okay with none of the bill of rights applying to the states? Because that's the literal state of history before what you call "activist."

No I’m not ok with that at all. The amendment should have need that shit. But her we are. Still fighting shit that should have been settled and it will always be that way because no one holds anyone accountable.

 

[Downzero]

No I’m not ok with that at all. The amendment should have need that shit. But her we are. Still fighting shit that should have been settled and it will always be that way because no one holds anyone accountable.

Or maybe you're reading into history with rose colored glasses, and were taught facts that simply aren't so.

 

[pmclaine]

No, sorry. There is no possible way to argue "oh, the founding fathers just figured that wouldn't happen so they didn't worry about it because these were good guys" when 1) Madison tried to have some of the amendments applied to the states but his attempt was rejected, and 2) they were all great students of the cycles of government and were attempting to write a document that would endure as others had not. It's just a shit argument. It was clearly intentional to leave a lot of this in the hands of the states.

Oh God this fuckstain again....

I said the Founders framed the Constitution with the central govt in mind and as the 10A memorializes everything else is the power of the state.

The "Statesmen" also feared the central govt and fought for their power. The Articles of Confederation failed because the states were just that bit too powerful.

With that in mind the Founders thought the states would maintain their strength. CW started us on a slippery slope. "Tweeks" to the Constitution have further eroded states power.

The Founders never intended states to be beat by the federal govt as they are today.

You are in agreement with what I am saying but you can't accept that's because you are a fuckstain.

 

[pmclaine]

Incorporating any of the bill of rights against the states would have been considered "activist" in 1900.

Most states have articles that mirror the bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights was plagiarized from various states existing constitutions to some degree.

 

[RGStory]

Most states have articles that mirror the bill of rights.

The Bill of Rights was plagiarized from various states existing constitutions to some degree.

I think Choid already addressed this:

note that NY is one of the few states without constitutional protections mimicikng the second, which is clearly pertinent to the case at hand.

 

[RGStory]

The historical irony of all this is that New York was on the winning side of the Civil War, yet now finds itself in court defending their state laws against the bill of rights.

 

[pmclaine]

I think Choid already addressed this:

Oh look his girlfriend....

I have said that in my posts.......Choid can not take agreement.

I even quoted the NY article of "Defense" which is what the antigunners interpret 2A to be though the two are not nearly similar.

 

[_Windrider_]

Oh God this fuckstain again....

I said the Founders framed the Constitution with the central govt in mind and as the 10A memorializes everything else is the power of the state.

The "Statesmen" also feared the central govt and fought for their power. The Articles of Confederation failed because the states were just that bit too powerful.

With that in mind the Founders thought the states would maintain their strength. CW started us on a slippery slope. "Tweeks" to the Constitution have further eroded states power.

The Founders never intended states to be beat by the federal govt as they are today.

You are in agreement with what I am saying but you can't accept that's because you are a fuckstain.

Tweaked or interpreted different and furthered by activists? You can’t tweak the constitution. You only follow it or defy it.

 

[Choid]

Tweaked or interpreted different and furthered by activists? You can’t tweak the constitution. You only follow it or defy it.

He might mean tweaking as amending.

 

[_Windrider_]

He might mean tweaking as amending.

Maybe. Maybe not. Amending is fine. There is a process for it and whether or not I agree with the change at least the constitution was honored.

 

[pmclaine]

There were Amendments.

Direct election of senators fucked things up. It was intended to be the saucer that cooled the hot tea. An upper house that spoke directly for the Governor of their state because they were beholden to him. It would eliminate the schizophrenia of a state lead by one party with majority representation federally of another. Now we get the same congressional retards that feel extra entitled and they make careers of entitlement. They should be replaced and turn over with the governor. The senate would reflect the will of the majority of the electorate as represented by the prevailing party affiliation of the governorship. Direct election ended what was supposed to strengthen the states and act as a throttle or cudgel to promote the will of the people. Sold to the people as "promoting democracy" aka mob rule.

Income taxes made the central govt stronger than the states. Previously the fed said had to rely on tariffs.
Business pressured govt to keep them low to increase sales. With income tax we put the Leviathan on steroids. Feds no longer went to the states with hat in hand. Inflation became good because it increased tax revenue. It made for good public works but also at wasteful overspending because who cared they could just tax more. Sold to the public as temporary.

Next came the 1930s, more in the 60s our last outrage in 2010 all facilitated by the courts.

In Teddy Rs regime we created the first of the non Constitutional law making bodies in the FDA than along came ATF, FBI, CIA, Energy, education, etc, etc.

So much bullshit stacked on bullshit

 

[Choid]

Fuck I agree with that with the proviso that funding the government through tariffs isn't exactly great either as tariffs are horrid policy. It's honest difficult to know which is a worse economic disruption.

 

[_Windrider_]

There were Amendments.

Direct election of senators fucked things up. It was intended to be the saucer that cooled the hot tea. An upper house that spoke directly for the Governor of their state because they were beholden to him. It would eliminate the schizophrenia of a state lead by one party with majority representation federally of another. Now we get the same congressional retards that feel extra entitled and they make careers of entitlement. They should be replaced and turn over with the governor. The seanta would reflect the will of the majority of the electorate as represented by the prevailing party affiliation of the governorship. Direct election ended what was supposed to strengthen the states and act as a throttle or cudgel to promote the will of the people. So,d to the people as "promoting democracy" aka mob rule.

Income taxes made the central govt stronger than the states. Previously the fed said had to rely on trade.
Business pressured govt to keep them low to increase sales. With income tax we put the Leviathan on steroids. Feds no longer went to the states with hat in hand. Inflation became good because it increased tax revenue. It made for good public works but also at wasteful overspending because who cared they could just tax more. Sold to the public as temporary.

Next came the 1930s, more in the 60s our last outrage in 2010 all facilitated by the courts.

In Teddy Rs regime we created the first of the non Constitutional law making bodies in the FDA than along came ATF, FBI, CIA, Energy, education, etc, etc.

So much bullshit stacked on bullshit

Yes elected senators by the mob was a horrible idea. The states no longer have representation

 

[Longshot231]

"Cue up the mass shooting! The Supreme Court is going to make a decision supporting the 2nd Amendment. We need to change their minds!"

Crowd surge kills at least 8 at Houston music festival

The crowd at a Houston music festival suddenly surged toward the stage during a performance by rapper Travis Scott, squeezing fans so tightly together that they could not breathe or move their arms and killing eight people in the chaos. “As soon as he jumped out on the stage, it was like an...

www.yahoo.com

 

[Choid]

"Cue up the mass shooting! The Supreme Court is going to make a decision supporting the 2nd Amendment. We need to change their minds!"

Crowd surge kills at least 8 at Houston music festival

The crowd at a Houston music festival suddenly surged toward the stage during a performance by rapper Travis Scott, squeezing fans so tightly together that they could not breathe or move their arms and killing eight people in the chaos. “As soon as he jumped out on the stage, it was like an...

www.yahoo.com

It was a trampling not a shooting, ffs.

 

[Longshot231]

It was a trampling not a shooting, ffs.

I stand corrected. I got the wrong story. Wasn't there a shooting somewhere, very recently, in which several people killed?

Pardon me while I look again.

PS: I cannot find it. I must have misunderstood something that I heard on the radio. Regardless of that, standby for the next mass shooting.

My guess now, is that they are waiting for the perfect timing. Possibly around Christmas.

 

[Bigfatcock]

I stand corrected. I got the wrong story. Wasn't there a shooting somewhere, very recently, in which several people killed?

Pardon me while I look again.

PS: I cannot find it. I must have misunderstood something that I heard on the radio. Regardless of that, standby for the next mass shooting.

My guess now, is that they are waiting for the perfect timing. Possibly around Christmas.

I agree with you that there will be another mass shooting, involving a CCW having MAGA supporter being the perpetrator.

The weekly “mass shootings” in Chicago will be ignored.

 

[Longshot231]

 

[...]

the fact that it is [checks watch] 2021...and we need to explain to people in this thread how the fucking Constitution and State vs. Federal govts works is one of the saddest fucking things I have ever seen...


did none of yall watch School House Rock ?

 

[Bigfatcock]

the fact that it is [checks watch] 2021...and we need to explain to people in this thread how the fucking Constitution and State vs. Federal govts works is one of the saddest fucking things I have ever seen...


did none of yall watch School House Rock ?

 

[pmclaine]

View attachment 7736892

Well there is.....sorta...

 

[HeavyAssault]

I stand corrected. I got the wrong story. Wasn't there a shooting somewhere, very recently, in which several people killed?

Pardon me while I look again.

PS: I cannot find it. I must have misunderstood something that I heard on the radio. Regardless of that, standby for the next mass shooting.

My guess now, is that they are waiting for the perfect timing. Possibly around Christmas.

It's called Chicago....