SCOTUS affirms gun rights in historic decision

[Rg9]

...stuff...

I didn't know that. Thanks.

The fallout of this has been inspiring. The NRA is the good alternate-universe version of the ACLU.

Since my last post was long... anyone know anything about how this could relate to arms on military bases (if at all)?

 

[nittany03]

I didn't know that. Thanks.

The fallout of this has been inspiring. The NRA is the good alternate-universe version of the ACLU.

Since my last post was long... anyone know anything about how this could relate to arms on military bases (if at all)?

I would bet that the matter is now, and will remain, under the discretion of the Commanding Officer of said installation.

 

[Flash]

Well... they have a point to some extent. For instance, the 1st Amendment has nothing to do with states. According to it, your state legislature can restrict as much free speech as it wants to (although many states have constitutions reflecting a lot of the US Constitution, including free speech), just as some states initially had state religions (sort of). In that way, religious values could be taught in schools, and it was in no way a violation of the 1st Amendment because it was run by the state and not the federal government. At least that's how it's written...

The way it is currently applied , however, is through the all-encompassing, ever expanding 14th Amendment, which requires that rights be extended to all citizens (in its intent, of course, it was referring to freed slaves). This Amendment has been used to justify basically anything, but some may (and most do) argue that it does require at least certain parts of the Bill of Rights to be extended to the states, such as the 2nd Amendment (just as the 8th Amendment was used to strike down Louisiana's child-rapist-execution law).

As to being bound by the Constitution, yeah a state is bound to it... But like what was said, the Constitution specifically restricts federal activity. So besides the things that the 14th Amendment would imply (which, yes, would include the 2nd Amendment), there is little else to be "bound" by.

On a separate note, would this decision have any implication on carrying weapons on base? It seems like a federal institution, especially when people live on it, would have to be bound to the 2nd Amendment. I understand Constitutional Rights don't always apply and the UCMJ takes precedent, but I guess I don't see why it's forbidden.

We fought a war over that, federal law always wins out in the end, theory or not. I don't think any state can make a law contrary to federal law and/or the Constitution specifically. I can't think of an example where a state passed a law contrary to the Constitution, give me an example (that still stands) and I may reconsider, but I would find it hard to believe.

As for military bases allowing arms, I am not sure the current rule will change much. You pointed out yourself about the UCMJ, which restricts rights of service members in certain cases already, why would arms be any different?

 

[snake020]

Since my last post was long... anyone know anything about how this could relate to arms on military bases (if at all)?

Each base is different. The base exchange at Elmendorf AFB Alaska sells handguns and AK-47s on base.

 

[Herc_Dude]

Each base is different. The base exchange at Elmendorf AFB Alaska sells handguns and AK-47s on base.

They sell them in Quantico too, but just because they sell them does that mean you can carry on base? I didn't have my collection when I was there, but I know on the TBS side they wanted us to check any firearms we wanted to have on base into the armory (yeah, no thanks...)

 

[MasterBates]

What drives me nuts is base policy is not consistent, and when the base CO changes what is acceptable for living in housing changes.

I went from "OK" to "put your crap in the armory or off base" twice so far, with nothing more than a COC.

 

[Rg9]

We fought a war over that, federal law always wins out in the end, theory or not. I don't think any state can make a law contrary to federal law and/or the Constitution specifically. I can't think of an example where a state passed a law contrary to the Constitution, give me an example (that still stands) and I may reconsider, but I would find it hard to believe.

As for military bases allowing arms, I am not sure the current rule will change much. You pointed out yourself about the UCMJ, which restricts rights of service members in certain cases already, why would arms be any different?

Yes, federal law wins out. The Constitution cannot be usurped by state constitutions. But please read it. Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law..." etc. etc. The Constitution specifically restricts federal activity, and only a small amount of state activity. In fact, it even affirms the authority the federal government does not have over the states (Amendment 10).

Unfortunately, the 14th Amendment is somewhat vague in how it expands the rights guaranteed under the Constitution to states. It is used frequently to say so, but I don't believe this is in line with the original intent (something ignored frequently in modern law). Regardless, as I said, most states have their own constitutions affirming a lot of the rights enumerated in the US Constitution.

 

[snake020]

They sell them in Quantico too, but just because they sell them does that mean you can carry on base? I didn't have my collection when I was there, but I know on the TBS side they wanted us to check any firearms we wanted to have on base into the armory (yeah, no thanks...)

You could carry on base if you were in transit to/from permanent base housing and could keep your weapon in possession in your house, or if you were going to shoot at the Army's outdoor firing range.

 

[nittany03]

A city in Illinois has already dropped its defacto ban on hanguns due to the Heller decision. It's already starting to do good work. It would be really nice to see it do some work in CA in regards to the ridiculous bans on certain weapons here, but we'll see.

One of the arguments which has given me thought is that Scalia's opinion endorsed several restrictions. Some of them are eminently sensible, such as not letting felons or lunatics have guns. But he also mentioned banning automatic weapons, specifically M-16s. It seems to me that he danced around the issue of "assault weapons" (a bullshit concept, I know). I think it'll take further litigation to get any of the ridiculous cosmetically-based laws off the books, where they belong.

 

[Pugs]

You could carry on base if you were in transit to/from permanent base housing and could keep your weapon in possession in your house, or if you were going to shoot at the Army's outdoor firing range.

Used to duck and pheasant hunt on the seaplane base at Whidbey just 13 years ago. You got a pass from Security and at the time it was OK, with the pass to have a shotgun in your vehicle on Ault field side as well as a lot of us hunted after work.

 

[pourts]

We fought a war over that, federal law always wins out in the end, theory or not. I don't think any state can make a law contrary to federal law and/or the Constitution specifically. I can't think of an example where a state passed a law contrary to the Constitution, give me an example (that still stands) and I may reconsider, but I would find it hard to believe.

I believe California's medicinal marijuanna law fits that criteria.

 

[Fly Navy]

I believe California's medicinal marijuanna law fits that criteria.

That actually has resulted in multiple legal battles. That is not a dead issue in any sense of the word, the Feds are not happy about CA's law.

 

[Fly Navy]

One of the arguments which has given me thought is that Scalia's opinion endorsed several restrictions. Some of them are eminently sensible, such as not letting felons or lunatics have guns. But he also mentioned banning automatic weapons, specifically M-16s. It seems to me that he danced around the issue of "assault weapons" (a bullshit concept, I know). I think it'll take further litigation to get any of the ridiculous cosmetically-based laws off the books, where they belong.

And that's the thing, we need to start using the tactics the anti-gunners have been using. In other words, start chipping away at the stupid gun control laws piece by piece, just like they laid them in there. Their use of incremental gun control has been very effective... we can do the same with them, and this ruling could help us do that. Unfortunately, a place like CA is a big uphill battle, as the sheep there will swallow most anything the anti-gun lobby sells them.

 

[BACONATOR]

And that's the thing, we need to start using the tactics the anti-gunners have been using. In other words, start chipping away at the stupid gun control laws piece by piece, just like they laid them in there. Their use of incremental gun control has been very effective... we can do the same with them, and this ruling could help us do that. Unfortunately, a place like CA is a big uphill battle, as the sheep there will swallow most anything the anti-gun lobby sells them.

FWIW, that is what California and a certain few cities have done by legalizing Medicinal Marijuana and decriminalizing it elsewhere.

In both cases: you climb a mountain one step at a time.

 

[m0tbaillie]

(I know that there's gotta be a good amount of checking your politics at the door).

Teehee. You see that little red square right below my avatar? Well, there's your answer.