Arizona senate panel passes law to ban federal gun laws

[Dusty Bake Activate]

whatever.
This week alone we've had a mass shooting

A senate that wants to arrest federal law enforcement agents.

A D for financial security of families
Report gives Arizona 'D' for financial security of families - Phoenix News - KTAR.com

We hoot and holler about "god" and yet are the 8th worst bible minded city...(i.e. people in my state like to talk about BS we know nothing about)
Bible-Minded Cities

Our Sports are all laughing stocks (minus U of Arizona basketball)
That's why I said Florida with the W.
We got this shyt on lock for worst state in the union.

 

[Brown_Pride]

but it was a race to the bottom son. We got the W.

 

[Slystallion]

Are gun laws a state law issue or federal issue. If the state gun laws are a state issue then the federal government has to respect the sovereignty of the state

 

[Brown_Pride]

Are gun laws a state law issue or federal issue. If the state gun laws are a state issue then the federal government has to respect the sovereignty of the state

*checks constitution*
Yup federal issue.

 

[Slystallion]

*checks constitution*
Yup federal issue.

The constitution states simply the right to bear arms. The states have been responsible on setting the limitations of who gets to own and what is legal to own. So by precedent haven't gun laws and limitations historically been the responsibility of states? So therefore the federal court if taken to supreme court would rule that it must respect the sovereignty of the state and its law.

 

[Brown_Pride]

The constitution states simply the right to bear arms. The states have been responsible on setting the limitations of who gets to own and what is legal to own. So by precedent haven't gun laws and limitations historically been the responsibility of states? So therefore the federal court if taken to supreme court would rule that it must respect the sovereignty of the state and its law.

It's not quite so simply stated...
2nd amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[[/qupte]

So since you left out roughly 3/4 of the actual "right" defined in the constitution lets review that which you have left out.

In order to maintain a well regulated militia the right of the people to bear arms should not be interfered with.

So the two key things to note are "well regulated" and "bear arms".

Well regulated implies that some rules or "REGULATIONS" are inherent to the amendment. Second, the degree by which we can "bear arms" is not defined other than to say we can and some form of regulation should exist.

So, depending on how you want to define "well regulated"...well you can regulate all types of shyt. No assault rifles. clip sizes, etc, etc.

Basically you have the right to use "arms" as defined within the regulations. So if the federal government, which per the 2nd amendment has the right to regulate "arms", decides to regulate which are you can use, hell even which ammo you can use, then that's well within it's right to do so.


A right to bear arms does not mean a right to do whatever the fuk you want.

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

The constitution states simply the right to bear arms. The states have been responsible on setting the limitations of who gets to own and what is legal to own. So by precedent haven't gun laws and limitations historically been the responsibility of states? So therefore the federal court if taken to supreme court would rule that it must respect the sovereignty of the state and its law.

federal law supercedes state law.

 

[Slystallion]

federal law supercedes state law.

not all the time, i forgot what case it was but i think it was called the Dorrance case it involved the estate tax and the Supreme Court ruled that they would not overrule the states because of state sovereignty and that estates were handled by the states.

and @brownpride i would need a lawyers input as far as what precedent says on the gun regulations and who has been responsible for the most part.

your right by the constitution limits and regulations can be put on gun ownership since i think during that time in the 1700's ax's were illegal. So there is a lot of interpretation left to individual states in my opinion as far as how far they want to regulate the ownership of "arms"

 

[Brown_Pride]

not all the time, i forgot what case it was but i think it was called the Dorrance case it involved the estate tax and the Supreme Court ruled that they would not overrule the states because of state sovereignty and that estates were handled by the states.

and @brownpride i would need a lawyers input as far as what precedent says on the gun regulations and who has been responsible for the most part.

your right by the constitution limits and regulations can be put on gun ownership since i think during that time in the 1700's ax's were illegal. So there is a lot of interpretation left to individual states in my opinion as far as how far they want to regulate the ownership of "arms"

You know what's funny? I"m against banning guns clip sizes sure, background checks, absolutely. Just looking at the 2nd amendment, precedent not withstanding, the 2nd amendment clearly allows for regulation.
Reading the shyt literally they can't BAN weapons, however; they could regulate that all triggers be removed ...i mean very technically of course.

Also the right to "bear arms" could be taken literally to mean they can carry them. The right to fire them, being undefined, would go unregulated. Meaning you should be able to fire a weapon when and where you please. The 2nd amendment can only technically regulate what arms you do carry.


Which leads me to the word "infringe", which basically negates everything i've said up until this point.

Essentially the 2nd amendment is a double negative
It calls for regulations, then says it's not ok to regulate.

we need a new 2nd amendment.

 

[Slystallion]

You know what's funny? I"m against banning guns clip sizes sure, background checks, absolutely. Just looking at the 2nd amendment, precedent not withstanding, the 2nd amendment clearly allows for regulation.
Reading the shyt literally they can't BAN weapons, however; they could regulate that all triggers be removed ...i mean very technically of course.

Also the right to "bear arms" could be taken literally to mean they can carry them. The right to fire them, being undefined, would go unregulated. Meaning you should be able to fire a weapon when and where you please. The 2nd amendment can only technically regulate what arms you do carry.


Which leads me to the word "infringe", which basically negates everything i've said up until this point.

Essentially the 2nd amendment is a double negative
It calls for regulations, then says it's not ok to regulate.

we need a new 2nd amendment.

using a strict constrictionist view though you would see that at the time even children were allowed access to shoot guns and ownership wasn't barred. However of course with time and technology higher powered weapons were invented and we don't know the founders intent would be on those.

obviously i'm loose on the 2nd ammendment and prefer people had the right to defend themselves. to what degree is another debate, should people have access to bazookas its unlikely to be needed to defend your home. But ultimately legal law you want to be as accurate as possible when discussing what is and isn't legal based on history and how to interpret the law.

Just like i'm pro life but legally using the justification that the rights of a mother supercede the rights of a fetus that can't live on its own seems like a fair legal interpretation to me. Since to ask when a life is a life is almost a question beyond science.

 

[The_Sheff]

so we're just supposed to go along with whatever the feds want to do, even when it's unconstitutional? what are the alternatives when government overreaches?

Thats goes with being part of a country.

If Arizona wants to leave the union then they are welcome to try. Im sure they will find that being part of the US is more beneficial than being able to own whatever gun they like.


And exactly which part of what the feds want to do is unconstitutional? Does the constitution specifically state which arms you are and are not allowed to own? If you are allowed all arms then why is the NRA not fighting for you to be able to own a minigun? Who is fighting for my right to own a rocket launcher?

 

[Brown_Pride]

using a strict constrictionist view though you would see that at the time even children were allowed access to shoot guns and ownership wasn't barred. However of course with time and technology higher powered weapons were invented and we don't know the founders intent would be on those.

obviously i'm loose on the 2nd ammendment and prefer people had the right to defend themselves. to what degree is another debate, should people have access to bazookas its unlikely to be needed to defend your home. But ultimately legal law you want to be as accurate as possible when discussing what is and isn't legal based on history and how to interpret the law.

Just like i'm pro life but legally using the justification that the rights of a mother supercede the rights of a fetus that can't live on its own seems like a fair legal interpretation to me. Since to ask when a life is a life is almost a question beyond science.

yeah i hear you. In a lot of problems facing the nation the answer is usually a common sense one.

 

[ExodusNirvana]

Thats goes with being part of a country.

If Arizona wants to leave the union then they are welcome to try. Im sure they will find that being part of the US is more beneficial than being able to own whatever gun they like.


And exactly which part of what the feds want to do is unconstitutional? Does the constitution specifically state which arms you are and are not allowed to own? If you are allowed all arms then why is the NRA not fighting for you to be able to own a minigun? Who is fighting for my right to own a rocket launcher?

See this is the dumb shyt that the constituents don't ask and don't think about.

They'd rather watch FoxNews and repeat the same stupid shyt that does'nt reflect reality or logic.

 

[[Something Cool]]

Are gun laws a state law issue or federal issue. If the state gun laws are a state issue then the federal government has to respect the sovereignty of the state

It depends on how the federal government is trying to enforce the legislation. Generally, Congress uses it Commerce Clause power to regulate a wide variety of activity. The most recent case to my knowledge dealing with something like this was United States v. Lopez which ruled that the federal government could not enforce a criminal ban on possessing arms within a school district because 1) there was no commercial nexus between guns and education and 2) the possession of a gun in itself has nothing to do with interstate commerce. The Supreme Court was worried about federal overreach regulating the activities of state citizens since the federal government doesn't have general police powers, however the states do.

I think the regulation in Lopez was overturned because on its face it didn't mention anything about commercial activity. I'm not familiar with this particular federal regulation, but if it mentions regulating guns that are "within the stream if interstate commerce" than maybe you'd have a federal supremacy issue.

 

[daze23]

Are gun laws a state law issue or federal issue. If the state gun laws are a state issue then the federal government has to respect the sovereignty of the state

the problem is we have an open country. how can a state ever hope to enforce something when someone can just drive to the next state? maybe a solution would be to close state borders, but I get the feeling that wouldn't make people very happy (it would also cost a lot of money)

it's not such a big deal if someone drives to another state to buy liquor on sunday. but it becomes more of an issue with something like guns