Some on this board claim that McDonald V Chicago means that No state laws concerning Firearms are proper. Some of us who are gun rights advocates disagree and note that some state laws are constitutionally sound even after incorporation so I figured I would post a poll to see where people who generally support gun ownership as an individual right stand
So passive aggressive. If you wanted to talk you could tag me dude. I notice you do not cite to Bruen. I notice you never responded in our discussion yesterday, to my citations from Bruen in response to your direct inquiry regarding same. I find this curious since you've rolled in and made a new thread instead, yet you make no mention of Bruen which is rather important as it fully clarifies the test which McDonald incorporates. Either way, I answered your poll. You'll notice you've got a big fat goose egg on courthouses, and random discharges aren't cool. Why don't YOU cite to Bruen and tell us what Bruen outlines as the historic record that is applicable?
not you. btw does anyone think any court will say a state cannot ban people carrying in courthouses or government offices or jails?
The debate on whether the national constitution applies to state governments appears to hinge on whether the words 'the government' in the BoR refers only to the federal govt or to state govts as well. The common assumption being that if it had meant state governments, it would have used a plural instead of singular. But to my mind, 'government' is just the authority of the individual delegated to the authority of the collective regardless of which 'body' is exercising the specific authority, which would include federal, state, local... I don't think its any less legitimate for any governing body to violate a civil right like the 2A than it would be for any governing body to censor a citizen or allow a citizen to be enslaved by another. That being said, not all gun regulations are necessarily violations of civil rights. Children, for example, are not treated as full citizens or as having full access to civil rights. Its accepted as lawful that parents may censor their children, restrict their freedom of movement, etc. It stands to reason that children may also be prohibited from having firearms. Criminals may be incarcerated. It stands to reason they may also be prohibited from having firearms. It seems to me if one governing body can restrict, so can others. But in the case of adult law abiding citizens, I don't think any governing body may restrict civil rights. Or, at least, it seems to me that was the original intent.
O sure sure. I'm perfectly certain this thread in no way relates to the post I've cited. No, that's the strawman you came up with in the other thread.
the issue to me is whether incorporation prevents state governments from preventing carrying firearms into places such as courthouses or jails. USING a firearm is not keeping and bearing and thus laws preventing the discharge of firearms in municipal areas, public parks or city streets is not at issue. I assert that state or municipal bans on carrying arms in courthouses, jails, governmental buildings does not violate the right of lawful adults to keep and bear arms. Some claim otherwise though I am 100% confident no federal court will ever claim that state governments cannot do that
you do realize others have argued that the second amendment prevents states regulating where people carry guns in any location
I don't think I understand incorporation enough to be of valuable input here I always assumed there was an onus of protection placed on courthouses, jails and government buildings, being that they are actively protected by armed agents of the government, that 'The People' were effectively 'bearing arms' there in a manner that is far more distinct than, say, walking around in the street or sitting at home where armed govt agents may or may not be present for defense. ...but thats just my assumption. If I get shot in the street, the cops can not be held responsible for failing to prevent it. But I get shot in a courtroom, is it legally due to negligence on the part of the courthouse?
it should be but I doubt it unless the powers that be put you in a heightened position of danger. But I have no issue with areas where I cannot carry firearms when there are tons of armed security-like federal courthouses
Point to such a person. None of them are here, none of them have claimed it in your poll. Don Quixote, get off that horse.
you didnt' see my discussion with Joe? Guess not. Is he on this thread NOT yet but I posted this based on the fact that he had claimed that he doesnt' believe states have any authority to ban carrying firearms by lawful owners in any areas
read this discussion-some replies I didn't quote but I gave you the starting point and some of the last posts including the most important which I bolded now he later noted that laws preventing say armed robbery or murder with firearms are not within his view of gun control laws that affect keeping and bearing and I accepted that modification
