Maryland's Handgun licensing law struck down as unconstitutional

Do explain.

 

the bill of rights were only intended by the founders to restrict the actions of the new federal government. They had absolutely no relevance to state powers. So if you asked TC about the second, he would not have claimed it precluded his home state of Pennsylvania from regulating the use or ownership of firearms.

 

Of course they did or the tenth would have never been made. It clearly outlines what is states rights and what is federal rights in the tenth. The second says that the right to bear shall not be infringed. Meaning it does not give the federal government that right, nor does it give the state that right.

and yes if you asked TC if Pennsylvania had the right to restrict arms he would have said no and is actually quoted saying that very thing.

[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

 

It matters not. He's not exactly an important part of that historical era and there is strong evidence he was a British Loyalist.

 

His words held a very great historical meaning. He was a law graduate and his writing were among many writings used to sell the constitution to the public. His quotes were also used to determine that the second was in fact a private right. To say his writings are not important is a lie.

 

so it is your belief that a guy who didn't even have any major elective office should decide that states cannot have any power to regulate firearms? Purists are fun in debates but not particularly useful in the real world. I know it is an individual right. I also know that incorporation was going to guarantee a conflict between legitimate state powers and the incorporation.

 

It is my believe because he was a well respected law grad and sold the constitution as a law grad would understand it at the time of ratification. His input goes to show that the public, even the educated public, took the second as a right of the citizen that the federal government and state could not take away. I suggest reading Second Amendment Primer. It’s a great book.

secondly he was an elected official and in office just before the states actually became independent if I remember correctly and was very much so in the side of the rebels. I would research him a bit more before you start making false claims.

 

This is strange. Never knew I was to the right of you on guns and that you would actually ever argue that the government has authority over that right. I highly advise reading about Tench Coxe and his historical meaning. I still like you, we just disagree here is all.

 

the constitution had nothing to do with state laws involving firearms

 

you seem to want to argue that states cannot regulate the use of firearms in any way shape or form

I disagree

 

Sure it does. the tenth says what is not delegated to the United States by the constitution nor is prohibited by it to the states is left up to the states or the people respectively, then when in conjunction with the second saying the peoples rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it definitely restricts the states from regulating against it.

 

what part of the constitution actually speaks to state firearms laws prior to incorporation

 

Before incorporation of the amendments? Be a little more descriptive in your question if you don’t mind.

 

lets cut through the BS-what state laws concerning firearms meet your concept of being constitutional

 

None.

 

as I said purists are fun in debates, but the real world is hard on them.

so you think it's perfectly ok for someone to start blasting pigeons on Times Square with a belt fed machine gun? Or firing a handgun into the air at the stadium every time your kid's team scores in a high school football game.

 

I can’t believe you would divulge into the use of harmful use rather than what I obviously was talking about (to keep and to bear). I’m far less than amused that you would even go there.

 

Let's review

so you are now claiming that laws the prevent using firearms in urban areas that may be considered reckless (we aren't talking about murder or robbery) ARE NOT LAWS CONCERNING FIREARMS?

so why don't you DEFINE what you consider LAWS CONCERNING FIREARMS when how you USE THEM is not included

so KEEP AND BEAR which is what I discussed earlier when i talked about the conflict between state laws and incorporation

so state laws cannot prevent you from bearing firearms into a courthouse or a jail?

 

This all started with a debate on CCW and how the state has no right to regulate on who carries and how. Not on use. You are obscuring the original debate for something I would agree with. The regulation on use I agree with. The regulation on ownership, carrying, or storage… even at a state level… I highly disagree with.

 

OK good, we have some better parameters.

1) does the state have the proper power to ban

a) children under the age of 18 from buying, possessing or carrying firearms
b) those with violent felony convictions from buying, possessing or carrying firearms
c) those who are under felony indictment, are fugitives from justice, illegal aliens or those who have ben adjudicated mentally incompetent from buying, possessing or carrying firearms

2) does the state have the power to prevent those who can lawfully carry and own firearms from carrying firearms in

a) prisons
b) police stations
c) schools
d) courthouses
e) the boarding areas in airports

 

I’m drunk, so let me properly respond to this tomorrow. I have a feeling this is going to go much more in depth.

 

Do you even hear yourself?
He's saying an amendment to the constitution changed how it worked. And you think that's some sort of wild hair.
He's right. Pick a side.

 

wrong-I said that incorporation meant that legitimate police powers were going to conflict with incorporation and the courts were going to have to decide if banning the carrying of firearms in say jails conflicts with keeping and bearing and I say NO. He may say yes. This is not a black and white issue at the state level. It is at the federal level but the government has ignored that. I pick what the law is

 

Incorporation makes the federal restrictions apply to the states. Amendments change the Constitution, and the latest in time rules in a conflict. Incorporation is latest in time.
The feds have no power. Ergo the states post incorporation are to have no power.

 

well federal restrictions on carrying in courthouses and jails have yet to be struck down.
You cannot carry in a military base, a federal courthouse, a federal prison or other federally controlled areas.
Do you claim that incorporation prevents the states from imposing similar rules?