McDonald / 2A Incorporation Thread

[miles71]

Hmmm, I like the reciprocity angle. Dont some of the other states grant a permit if a person holds a permit from another state? Also seems like a national CCW would make sense at this point, since the 2A is supposed to be the same throughout the US.

Gonna be an interesting few months.

TD

 

[Celtic159]

Hmmm, I like the reciprocity angle. Dont some of the other states grant a permit if a person holds a permit from another state? Also seems like a national CCW would make sense at this point, since the 2A is supposed to be the same throughout the US.

Gonna be an interesting few months.

TD

Because the right was incorporated through Due Process, I believe that means that if the right is extended to some, it must be extended to all. Had the right been incorporated through P&I, then the point becomes moot, as everyone would be eligible for the right unless they're disqualified through either criminal history (which is also a tenuous disqualifier) or mental health history.

 

[Patrick]

Discretionary Issue is dead in MD. We can end this via this route in short order and I'll be out of a dinner bet with another MDS member...

Hope you like your Big Mac cold, brother.

 

[Patrick]

Hmmm, I like the reciprocity angle. Dont some of the other states grant a permit if a person holds a permit from another state? Also seems like a national CCW would make sense at this point, since the 2A is supposed to be the same throughout the US.

This argument hinges on whether a state can regulate away some form of carry. That has not yet been defined. So nothing right now forces MD to allow you to bear arms. We're all talking trash legal theory at this point, but it looks quite possible.

But when it comes to universal/national carry, even the SAF has stipulated in both Palmer and Sykes that the states are left the power to determine the best method of carry using local norms and dictum. So "National Carry" - while practical - is not something they might envision as protected in quite the way you do.

They do argue in both cases for non-resident permits, but did not call it "reciprocity". Even though it kinda is the best way to accomplish the matter. So under their theory, NY could make you CCW while MD could make you OC while DC says "either/or".

But the big point here is that they stipulate it is up to the legislatures to decide on a state-by-state basis what they choose and some manner in how it is implemented. Those variances could make for one messy bowl of soup.

 

[The3clipser]

Hmmm, I like the reciprocity angle. Dont some of the other states grant a permit if a person holds a permit from another state? Also seems like a national CCW would make sense at this point, since the 2A is supposed to be the same throughout the US.

Gonna be an interesting few months.

TD

Not grant a permit per se, but they respect each others' permits. For example, if you have a VA permit, FL will respect it, and vice versa. Here is an interactive map where you can pick where your permit is from, and find out where it is respected.
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html

 

[miles71]

I think the only thing that we can be sure of is that something might happen that could be different than what we have at the time.

To bad I have never been a patient guy................ Good luck to us all.

TD

 

[Virginian Templar]

I'm going to assume this is a generalization. It would break my spirit to know that a number of LEOs I met through this forum are not my friends.

I've not met any from this forum, but my uncle is a retired MD St Trooper who'd have given his own mother a ticket. I'm pretty sure he'd have balled you up and thrown away the key over a firearm issue if given the chance. I doubt he's alone.

 

[Squaredout]

Don't see why not. I'm sure the delegate would appreciate your thanks for the effort on our behalf.

Thanks Norton. I will send a letter of thanks. I will also say THANK YOU to all that are fighting the good fight to ensure our rights are safeguarded.

 

[Lex Armarum]

Oh, I'm sorry, all people's should be able to have a handgun with narcotics and in the commission of a crime. It's the 2A. I support the 2A for law abiding citizens. There is a big difference between speeding and crack. You have changed my POV.

The court has consistently discussed "reasonable restrictions". I think not possessing a gun while possessing crack or heroin is reasonable. Imparting a heavier penalty would keep another criminal off the streets. If you are possessing a firearm and narcotics, you are probably not a constitutional scholar. For something as minor as speeding...don't think so. But you go ahead and apply as many insane scenarios to the term "criminal" as you can so you can say I am f'ing nuts and anti-2A. You know, jay-walking, spitting out your gum (littering), etc. If the "common people" are crackheads, we are all in trouble.

Are you against gun restrictions for convicted felons, or those deemed mentally unstable?

I know I'm late getting in on this argument but there was a wonderful article in the Harvard Journal of Constitutional Law & Policy entitled, "Should Martha Stewart be denied a gun," or something along those lines discussing this line of argument. On the one hand, certain felons should probably be denied the RKBA because they have a tendencies to misuse them when in possession, let's call this group "violent offenders." Then there is the other group, those convicted of crimes real or imagined and legislated by some legislature that are considered disqualifying crimes due to the label felony (resulting from the associated sentence or legislative wording) - people such as Martha Stewart who are now felons but committed no physical crime against another person - we'll call this group "non-violent offenders." Considering it in this light, should non-violent offenders be denied the RKBA by virtue that whatever non-violent/abstract crime they were convicted of is considered a "felony"?

I'll scan and post the article if DD214 gives me the go ahead.

 

[Rattlesnake46319]

with respect to the 2A as a broad generaliztion, yes. Privately, that may not be the case.

Do you honestly think LEO's want regular guys like you and I to carry??? Why were there two (openly clothed) cops from different forces there to give their support to that dumb arse bullet bill that failed??? When making even more sh** illegal is on the table, you seldom see LEO's not lending their support. Are their exceptions? Sure.

Considering that I was required in two Shall Issue states to go to the local police department to apply for my carry license and was not treated as scum for daring to exercise my rights....well, either they're good actors or *gasp* they were perfectly fine with a "regular guy" carrying a firearm. Regarding Maryland LEOs, I've only seen support in regards to self-defense and firearms.

As for the two officers lending support, did you happen to check patches and rank? Without having been there, I would assume the two you saw were from one of four jurisdictions (MoCo, PG, Balto City, MSP) and were of the rank of Captain (or equivalent). To me, their opinion on firearm law is about the same as an Air Force General's opinion on urban warfare.

I've not met any from this forum, but my uncle is a retired MD St Trooper who'd have given his own mother a ticket. I'm pretty sure he'd have balled you up and thrown away the key over a firearm issue if given the chance. I doubt he's alone.

I don't doubt he's alone. There's schmucks in every walk of life. However, I refuse to believe they are in the majority.....though it certainly seems like it some days.

 

[Lex Armarum]

But since now the 2A is an incorporated right, it is all up to the feds, correct?

So the 10A will be thrown out the window and all the free states will have to do as the feds say. Before the states had the power to make their own decisions regarding things such as CCW and wait periods to buy firearms. Do the feds now have the power to change these laws in the free states?

The 10th Amnd. was thrown out the window a long time ago.

 

[Lex Armarum]

But since now the 2A is an incorporated right, does that mean that the states constitutions regarding the 2A are now null and void? How will this ruling affect those states constitutions?

No. States' constitutions still stand; all the ruling says is that states cannot unduly restrict the RKBA. In the realm of federalism, a State may have more aggressive protections/restrictions than the federal gov but not less aggressive protections/restrictions. Thus, States with a strong RKBA in their constitutions have nothing to fear. States that have less stringent protections have now forcibly had their protections strengthened.

 

[Lex Armarum]

Both valid points. Another thing to consider is that it's illegal to charge people a fee to vote. Voting is a fundamental right, as is (thanks to SCOTUS) private firearm ownership and self-defense. While the Court left the door open for "common sense" gun laws, I think there's a good case to be made that the legal default should be that everyone can carry at any time.

The "poll tax" argument was raised on Volokh and here's the skinny:

The reason a "poll tax" (a.k.a. charging people a fee to vote) is illegal is largely due to the 24th Amnd. which explicitly outlawed such things.

24th Amendment
Amendment XXIV

Section 1.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The issue of the right being "fundamental" or not has little to do with the constitutional analysis surrounding the legitimacy of a "poll tax."

 

[cad424]

I believe in FREEDOM, not in celebrating whatever tidbit some .gov bureaucrat or judge deems permissive at any given moment. "Reasonable restrictions" are not reasonable, they're just restrictions.

You're using defensive language while making your point, the anti's are controlling a significant portion of the argument at that point. Why waste energy in overly defining an argument? I support the RKBA for all free citizens of USofA. Barring those deemed incompetent, there is no valid reason to deprive a man (or woman) of his rights. Who give a rip if someone is in possession of an inanimate object while performing an act? It the act is at issue, address the issue. Don't tack on charges for possession of an object.

"Your honor, Mr Smith is guilty of speeding, while chewing gum, AND he was in possession of a double bladed pocket knife!" HFS! Clearly he was up to no good! Hang him!

If someone did time in jail and was released then their debt to society has been paid. Save a probationary period, if there is one, they should have ALL of their rights restored. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

It's not only illegal, but immoral to willfully injure or kill someone without provocation, so do you think that someone who would do so gives a flip about the law? I don't live my life in fear of those who may wish to do me harm. I take responsibility for my own safety and that of my family. It's why I have a CCW and stay ever vigilant.

Right on, man! People spout "pay their debt to society" and then those that made a bad decison and "paid their debt to society" forever have black cloud hanging over them.

 

[ezliving]

In Maryland, felons can vote.

 

[cad424]

I'm aware of that, thanks.

 

[ezliving]

The "poll tax" argument was raised on Volokh and here's the skinny:

The reason a "poll tax" (a.k.a. charging people a fee to vote) is illegal is largely due to the 24th Amnd. which explicitly outlawed such things.



The issue of the right being "fundamental" or not has little to do with the constitutional analysis surrounding the legitimacy of a "poll tax."

It seems the phrase, "... shall not be... abridged," is pretty effective for the 24th Amendment. No confusion there.

 

[MDFF2008]

It seems the phrase, "... shall not be... abridged," is pretty effective for the 24th Amendment. No confusion there.

True, but it does specifically say...

shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

 

[teratos]

Right on, man! People spout "pay their debt to society" and then those that made a bad decison and "paid their debt to society" forever have black cloud hanging over them.

...and many who have paid their debt to society have done so several times, and will keep doing so until they are in prison for life or dead. Here's a scenario that is very real. 18 year old guy, been in trouble for armed robbery, assault etc. decides to rob your grandmother's house. She happens to be home, so this sick bastard ties her up and rapes her. Your sister comes to visit while he is still there. He beats her to a pulp and rapes her too. He is caught, goes to trial, is sentenced to 30 years. He gets out after 20, because he has been a model prisoner. He now decides he wants a gun permit. I guess you're ok with that? Right on, man!

 

[teratos]

I know I'm late getting in on this argument but there was a wonderful article in the Harvard Journal of Constitutional Law & Policy entitled, "Should Martha Stewart be denied a gun," or something along those lines discussing this line of argument. On the one hand, certain felons should probably be denied the RKBA because they have a tendencies to misuse them when in possession, let's call this group "violent offenders." Then there is the other group, those convicted of crimes real or imagined and legislated by some legislature that are considered disqualifying crimes due to the label felony (resulting from the associated sentence or legislative wording) - people such as Martha Stewart who are now felons but committed no physical crime against another person - we'll call this group "non-violent offenders." Considering it in this light, should non-violent offenders be denied the RKBA by virtue that whatever non-violent/abstract crime they were convicted of is considered a "felony"?

I'll scan and post the article if DD214 gives me the go ahead.

I have no problem with non-violent offenders keeping firearms. The violent ones: rapists, murderers should not be.