Who should be prevented from buying a firearm?

[Ted]

Correct... And felonies differ state by state. If felons are prevented from having guns, but the qualifications differ by jurisdiction, should the federal govt demand more uniformity?

No, because the states are sovereign.

 

[Trooper]

No, because the states are sovereign.

Can the states violate the liberties within the constitution? If they can limit guns then not your right to speech or what you read as well? Or does the federal government have the responsibility to safeguard your rights so that they are uniform across the states?

 

[Kutnupe14]

The right to arms, that is the subject, please keep up. Why do the people who know the least of the history of gun control adore it so much and have so much to say about it?

...and the "other" rights during that time were...?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Can the states violate the liberties within the constitution? If they can limit guns then not your right to speech or what you read as well? Or does the federal government have the responsibility to safeguard your rights so that they are uniform across the states?

The simple response to you question, is that the Constitution was drafted to restrain the federal govt... the states, up until the 14th Amendment, had no such restrictions...

 

[Ted]

Can the states violate the liberties within the constitution? If they can limit guns then not your right to speech or what you read as well? Or does the federal government have the responsibility to safeguard your rights so that they are uniform across the states?

The states don't have the authority to micromanage anything beyond the 17 powers allocated unto it within the Constitution.

That would include criminal code and procedures, laws upon marriage, voting, etc.....so long as its consistent with COTUS.

Or would you prefer that the feds step into Indiana, and tell us that we must recognize everything the California and Massachusetts does, simply under the guise of "being uniform"?

 

[Trooper]

The states don't have the authority to micromanage anything beyond the 17 powers allocated unto it within the Constitution.

That would include criminal code and procedures, laws upon marriage, voting, etc.....so long as its consistent with COTUS.

Or would you prefer that the feds step into Indiana, and tell us that we must recognize everything the California and Massachusetts does, simply under the guise of "being uniform"?

I think that the states do not have the right to violate your rights under the constitution. If the states are totally independant than we could have states that run by dictators than by being elected. States could have kings and nobles.

Though it does seems like some states are dictatorial, they still have to go through the steps of having elections.

What rights would you have the states being more sovern, with greater powers than the constitution? What individual freedoms would you give up to the states?

Wasn't the Conferdate States of America about creating a situation where the states had power, more power than their citizens? And did we not have abuses of power in the South where very powerful men were almost dictators within their counties? Do you want to return to that?

And we do try to make some things uniform. Like Drivers Licenses and car registrations. Think if you forbidden to drive from state to state unless you had a license from each state. States to have to work together to provide uniform regulations on lots of issues.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think that the states do not have the right to violate your rights under the constitution. If the states are totally independant than we could have states that run by dictators than by being elected. States could have kings and nobles.

Though it does seems like some states are dictatorial, they still have to go through the steps of having elections.

What rights would you have the states being more sovern, with greater powers than the constitution? What individual freedoms would you give up to the states?

Wasn't the Conferdate States of America about creating a situation where the states had power, more power than their citizens? And did we not have abuses of power in the South where very powerful men were almost dictators within their counties? Do you want to return to that?

And we do try to make some things uniform. Like Drivers Licenses and car registrations. Think if you forbidden to drive from state to state unless you had a license from each state. States to have to work together to provide uniform regulations on lots of issues.

No.... lol, you are clearly a yankee blue belly

 

[CarmelHP]

...and the "other" rights during that time were...?

...not the subject of this thread.

 

[CarmelHP]

The simple response to you question, is that the Constitution was drafted to restrain the federal govt... the states, up until the 14th Amendment, had no such restrictions...

The Constitution was drafted to create the federal government and delegate powers to it. The Bill of Rights was adopted to restrain federal power. Each state had state Constitutions delineating their powers.

 

[marcweid]

I am sorry if I go a little of course but I think my view is shown here.
First I want to say that I fully support anddo my best to stand behind both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I have parts of both tattooed on myself. I believe as many of our forefathers did that the constitution only works for a moral and god fearing society. I would include the Bill of Rights in this also. I do feel there is a very broad meaning of god. All that really matters is if aperson fears some sort of ultimate consequence from right and wrong (almost every religion has some belief of an after life). I however feel that both were written in a different time. I believe that this change in time is evident in all the subsequent amendments to the Bill of Rights. There are more words in the 12th amendment than all of the original amendments combined. This is because society has found ways to pick apart or find loopholes in every law that gets written. They fail to realize that these very laws were written to protect them. This is because people feel if they can convince themselves it is ok, than it is ok. The movie Law Abiding Citizen needs to be looked at by all political and judicial figures. Way to many people in today’s society have no morals or fear or respect of a god.

With the above said I feel that we now have tomake new laws to help protect our original laws and amendments.

I hate to see more restrictions on gun owners but I do feel it is necessary. I personally carry two guns at ALL times along with one in every vehicle I own. I also feel that there should be no restrictions on how many or what time of guns should be owned (full auto, hi capacity,cannons, etc). But I do feel the need for there to be a classification of a “proper person”. I understand that there are different levels of criminals (I am not a saint) and mental illness. I have worked for a boss in the past that was bipolar and would be the nicest guy in the world and next second punch his employee's for not doing something correctly. He had several legal(I assume) full auto weapons. And I don’t think he should own any gun period. He had been arrested several times but because of the people he knew and the moneyhe had he was never charged. I realize there are many different forms of bipolar as there are alcoholics (some funny,some violent).

In summary the Constitution and Bill of Rightswere written at a time when men felt so strongly about what they felt that they knew just signing (Declaration of Independence) and being a part of these events could mean death. How many people todaywould do this for what they believe in? This is why I feel there has to be continued change (NOT OBAMA). We can no longer move to a “new” land to startover as there is no new land left. Our Constitution was written as a culmination of all that had been learned from history. I personally feel that America was able to defeat the British because we felt so strongly in what we werefighting for. And the British were only fighting for what they were told to do so for. Now we fight each other over a street or a side of town. As long as American’s fights themselves we will never be able to prosper as are forefathers dreamed.

I knowI got way off subject but I feel very strongly about the state are country isin and it saddens me to see us fight amongst ourselves when there are so manyoutsiders hating us. Also please excuse any grammatical errors I wrote this at 2am from a cell phone.

 

[Kutnupe14]

...not the subject of this thread.

Not a very impressive avoidance technique.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The Constitution was drafted to create the federal government and delegate powers to it. The Bill of Rights was adopted to restrain federal power. Each state had state Constitutions delineating their powers.

I can accept that clarification

 

[CarmelHP]

Not a very impressive avoidance technique.

But fitting for your not very impressive diversion technique.

 

[Ted]

I think that the states do not have the right to violate your rights under the constitution. If the states are totally independant than we could have states that run by dictators than by being elected. States could have kings and nobles.

If you go ahead and reread my post, you'll discover that I never advocated states violating rights under COTUS. I also never stated that the states were independent, merely sovereign. So much, 10A was penned to guarantee such.

Article 4 is very specific in the regard to state government, guaranteeing every State in the Union a Republican Form of such.

Though it does seems like some states are dictatorial, they still have to go through the steps of having elections.

See my statement regarding Article 4, above.

What rights would you have the states being more sovern, with greater powers than the constitution? What individual freedoms would you give up to the states?

Perhaps you misconstrue the definition of sovereign, as I speak of states in comparison to the federal government. Montana decided a few years back, that the firearms manufactured for in-state sale and use, weren't eligible under the federal interstate commerce clause.

Wasn't the Conferdate States of America about creating a situation where the states had power, more power than their citizens? And did we not have abuses of power in the South where very powerful men were almost dictators within their counties? Do you want to return to that?

The CSA was created, much for the reason that the states wanted to maintain the original intent of the Framers when they drafted the Constitution. I'm not stating that the state governments were correct, but Washington D.C. has clearly overstepped their constitutional bounds.

And we do try to make some things uniform. Like Drivers Licenses and car registrations. Think if you forbidden to drive from state to state unless you had a license from each state. States to have to work together to provide uniform regulations on lots of issues.

Article 4, regarding full faith and credit specifically addresses such matters as compulsory, though you'll note that it doesn't seem to apply to firearms, marriage, and a whole slew of other matters. The reasons for these exceptions, is because they are within the purview of the states. There is that 10A thing again.

I will ask you this though........Should Illinois be more like Indiana, or should Indiana be more like Illinois? If the states have to more uniform, it gets rather sticky to who gets to make the rules; and to use an idiom, many people effectively decide to vote with their feet when it comes to a tyrannical government.

 

[CarmelHP]

Article 4, regarding full faith and credit specifically addresses such matters as compulsory, though you'll note that it doesn't seem to apply to firearms, marriage, and a whole slew of other matters. The reasons for these exceptions, is because they are within the purview of the states. There is that 10A thing again.

Drivers licenses are not recognized under full, faith and credit, but by a compact between the states and states' internal laws. Full, faith and credit merely requires that states believe that sister states took certain actions such as passing a law, or making a court judgment, not that sister states have to give those acts of other states the exact same effect with their own borders.

 

[jgreiner]

Who should be prevented from buying a firearm? How about hypocritical celebutards that whine about needing more gun control, then HIRE armed security guards to protect their sorry butts? They should be prevented from being able to HIRE others to protect them.

 

[Ted]

Drivers licenses are not recognized under full, faith and credit, but by a compact between the states and states' internal laws. Full, faith and credit merely requires that states believe that sister states took certain actions such as passing a law, or making a court judgment, not that sister states have to give those acts of other states the exact same effect with their own borders.

The only compact that I am aware, is the Driver License Compact to exchange information concerning license suspensions and violations between the states.

All but a half dozen or so states belong to this compact, and the compacts has no bearing upon recognition and authorization to operate a motor vehicle upon the roads in another state.

Of course, interstate commerce is also an issue....and Federal DOT law and regs are applicable as well.

 

[CarmelHP]

The only compact that I am aware, is the Driver License Compact to exchange information concerning license suspensions and violations between the states.

All but a half dozen or so states belong to this compact, and the compacts has no bearing upon recognition and authorization to operate a motor vehicle upon the roads in another state.

Of course, interstate commerce is also an issue....and Federal DOT law and regs are applicable as well.

And if it had anything to do with "full, faith and credit" then there would be no need for the compact to recognize each states' traffic violations and limitations, right? Again, it's a combination of the interstate Driver's License Compact and the states' internal laws that grant recognition to other states' drivers and hold them accountable for traffic violations in other states. For example, Indiana has an exemption from obtaining its drivers license for residents of other states who hold a foreign state driver license (IC 9-24-1-7). This has nothing to do with "full, faith and credit" or "commerce clause." Commerce and DOT does come into play for regulating CDLs but not for individual private operators. Issuance of non-commercial drivers licenses is a state issue handled by the states.

 

[Ted]

And if it had anything to do with "full, faith and credit" then there would be no need for the compact to recognize each states' traffic violations and limitations, right? Again, it's a combination of the interstate Driver's License Compact and the states' internal laws that grant recognition to other states' drivers and hold them accountable for traffic violations in other states. For example, Indiana has an exemption from obtaining its drivers license for residents of other states who hold a foreign state driver license (IC 9-24-1-7). This has nothing to do with "full, faith and credit" or "commerce clause." Commerce and DOT does come into play for regulating CDLs but not for individual private operators. Issuance of non-commercial drivers licenses is a state issue handled by the states.

Then please point out the specific compact, as well as the internal Indiana laws regarding some guy's regular ol' operator's license from, for example from Ohio, to support your argument.

The purpose of the Driver License Compact is to provide a record to driving violations, in order to keep improper persons from operating vehicles.

Furthermore,

• Georgia;
• Massachusetts;
• Michigan;
• Wisconsin;
• Tennessee; and
• Nevada;

aren't members of the compact, but we all here in Indiana still can operate a motor vehicle in those states.

Just another thought.......describe the rationale behind the UCC.

 

[CarmelHP]

Then please point out the specific compact, as well as the internal Indiana laws regarding some guy's regular ol' operator's license from, for example from Ohio, to support your argument.

The purpose of the Driver License Compact is to provide a record to driving violations, in order to keep improper persons from operating vehicles.

Furthermore,

• Georgia;
• Massachusetts;
• Michigan;
• Wisconsin;
• Tennessee; and
• Nevada;

aren't members of the compact, but we all here in Indiana still can operate a motor vehicle in those states.

Just another thought.......describe the rationale behind the UCC.

You're thick Ted, the Compact AND STATES' INTERNAL LAWS. The UCC also has nothing to do with "full, faith and credit." It's a model code that states can enact or not. It's an easy way for states to harmonize laws, but they don't have to, and was drawn up by the ALI and NCCUSL to provide common law concepts in statute. I already pointed out the Indiana Code section that exempts holders of foreign states' operator licenses from having an Indiana license. Other states have similar laws. How much spoon feeding does it take?