Go Back   Maryland Shooters > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues
Don't Have An Account? Register Here

Join MD Shooters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 30th, 2019, 08:53 AM #1
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,446
DanGuy48 DanGuy48 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,446
California state’s rights issue headed to SCOTUS

I just read this and this sounds to me like a potentially bad case in terms of impact on gun rights under state laws. Am I incorrect?

“Somin argues that Murphy v. NCAA, decided by the Supreme Court last year, will have a big impact on this case and a positive one for federalism. In the NCAA case, the court ruled that a federal law could not commandeer the regulatory power of state governments.

Like PASPA, Section 1373 is an “order” to state and local officials; it undermines states’ control over their governmental machinery and partially transfers it to the federal government. In this case, federal law prevents states and localities from directing their law enforcement officials to pursue state and local priorities rather than assist federal immigration enforcers.
Conservatives especially should be mindful that a result they approve of may come at the expense of a foundational principle they hold dear. While California’s laws in opposition to federal law in immigration seem wrong for a host of reasons, the consequences of how they are challenged may have wide-ranging consequences in other states for other issues. As Somin concludes, those “[c]onservatives who may cheer Trump’s efforts to coerce sanctuary cities may not be so happy when future Democratic presidents use similar tactics on issues such as gun control, education, or environmental enforcement.””

(Emphasis added)

https://www.libertynation.com/will-t...to-california/
__________________
NRA Life Member
Member MSI, SAF
NRA certified RSO, Basic Pistol, Home Firearm Safety
Work hard, shoot straight, play fair, fight dirty
DanGuy48 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2019, 03:54 PM #2
CrueChief's Avatar
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,443
CrueChief CrueChief is offline
Cocker Dad
CrueChief's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Napolis-ish
Posts: 1,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanGuy48 View Post
I just read this and this sounds to me like a potentially bad case in terms of impact on gun rights under state laws. Am I incorrect?

“Somin argues that Murphy v. NCAA, decided by the Supreme Court last year, will have a big impact on this case and a positive one for federalism. In the NCAA case, the court ruled that a federal law could not commandeer the regulatory power of state governments.

Like PASPA, Section 1373 is an “order” to state and local officials; it undermines states’ control over their governmental machinery and partially transfers it to the federal government. In this case, federal law prevents states and localities from directing their law enforcement officials to pursue state and local priorities rather than assist federal immigration enforcers.
Conservatives especially should be mindful that a result they approve of may come at the expense of a foundational principle they hold dear. While California’s laws in opposition to federal law in immigration seem wrong for a host of reasons, the consequences of how they are challenged may have wide-ranging consequences in other states for other issues. As Somin concludes, those “[c]onservatives who may cheer Trump’s efforts to coerce sanctuary cities may not be so happy when future Democratic presidents use similar tactics on issues such as gun control, education, or environmental enforcement.””

(Emphasis added)

https://www.libertynation.com/will-t...to-california/
I agree that it could go real bad, but only because most states are addicted to federal money. If we as a country, as states or even as counties could reduce the need for money from the next level up of Government, the less the federal gov't could hold states hostage. The flip side of that is of course local governance needs local accountability both legally and morally.

So yeah this could go bad.
CrueChief is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2019, 08:00 PM #3
HaveBlue's Avatar
HaveBlue HaveBlue is online now
HaveBlue
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 289
HaveBlue HaveBlue is online now
HaveBlue
HaveBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Virginia
Posts: 289
I’m not worried for a second.

All states are parties to the COTUS. Feds enforcing civil rights will alway trump.

Anytime a liberal gives out advice based on a future prediction, the opposite is all but guaranteed.
HaveBlue is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2019, 09:31 PM #4
Engine4's Avatar
Engine4 Engine4 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,240
Engine4 Engine4 is offline
Senior Member
Engine4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 5,240
States should have rights, yes, but not over the Constitution.
Engine4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 30th, 2019, 10:27 PM #5
Muleskinner's Avatar
Muleskinner Muleskinner is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: East of the Mississippi West of the Atlantic..
Posts: 2,344
Muleskinner Muleskinner is offline
Senior Member
Muleskinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: East of the Mississippi West of the Atlantic..
Posts: 2,344
The 10th amendment is clear. Any powers NOT enumerate in the Constitution are states domain. Last time I checked the issue of owning and bearing arms WAS an enumerated right and therefore should NOT be the domain of the states...that is why the ONLY legitimate gun law in this country is the 2nd amendment since the constitution is the highest form of federal law..
__________________
http://markwfarrar.com/pictures/GOA%20Life%20Member.jpg

Any "Buy Back fines" will be paid for in lead.....
Muleskinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2019, 08:11 AM #6
jc1240's Avatar
jc1240 jc1240 is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 7,561
jc1240 jc1240 is online now
Senior Member
jc1240's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Carroll County
Posts: 7,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muleskinner View Post
The 10th amendment is clear. Any powers NOT enumerate in the Constitution are states domain. Last time I checked the issue of owning and bearing arms WAS an enumerated right and therefore should NOT be the domain of the states...that is why the ONLY legitimate gun law in this country is the 2nd amendment since the constitution is the highest form of federal law..
__________________
John
jc1240 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2019, 08:18 AM #7
PJDiesel's Avatar
PJDiesel PJDiesel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 16,714
PJDiesel PJDiesel is offline
Senior Member
PJDiesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 16,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine4 View Post
States should have rights, yes, but not over the Constitution.
Hummmphh....

You mean like "May" Issue?
PJDiesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2019, 05:14 PM #8
Bob A's Avatar
Bob A Bob A is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,857
Bob A Bob A is offline
Senior Member
Bob A's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 11,857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muleskinner View Post
The 10th amendment is clear. Any powers NOT enumerate in the Constitution are states domain. Last time I checked the issue of owning and bearing arms WAS an enumerated right and therefore should NOT be the domain of the states...that is why the ONLY legitimate gun law in this country is the 2nd amendment since the constitution is the highest form of federal law..
10. 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.
__________________
The Hand That Signs The Paycheck Rules The World

"Forget it, Jake, it's C̶h̶i̶n̶a̶t̶o̶w̶n̶ Maryland."

Originally Posted by Deep Lurker:
Quote:
Disclaimer: “No criminals will be harmed in the passage of these gun control bills.”
Bob A is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2019, 09:32 AM #9
Major03 Major03 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern Maryland, Baltimore County
Posts: 1,470
Major03 Major03 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern Maryland, Baltimore County
Posts: 1,470
Which is why when you put judges who are not originalists on the Supreme Court it's a bad idea. The 2nd is clearly written, but mental gymnastics, creative interpretations and an acceptance of the concept of a "living document" all lead to a grey area in terms of what that right protects and opens up a fissure for states to then claim the 10th gives them the ability to work within and expand that fissure.
Major03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Home Page > Forum List > Gun Rights and Legislation > National 2A Issues


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
© 2019, Congregate Media, LP Privacy Policy Terms of Service