Author Topic: Concealed Carry Law in MN - no violence yet (Read 735 times)

lazs2 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 03, 2004, 02:15:01 PM »

well.... you guys just don't understand... just because concealed carry causes no problems and actually prevents crime in everyu state it is allowed is not the point...

it just doesn't "feel" like a good idea and.... guns have the wrong color aura and.... it's not very european to allow people to defend themselves.

lazs

GtoRA2 · « **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2004, 02:16:43 PM »

Damnit Laz you eurotrash hippy!!!

Dago · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2004, 02:51:29 PM »

lasz hits the nail on the head.

Kind of a "If I dont like it, you cant have it" mentality among them donuts.

dago

miko2d · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2004, 03:55:57 PM »

lasersailor184: Man I love carrying this pocket constitution around. Especially love it when I shove it in the manager's face.

"shall not be infringed" applies to the Federal Government. It infringes anyway.
The States can regulate and ban arms.
Private persons and companies can ban arms on their property and there is nothing you can do about it.

miko

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:00:54 PM »

There's this thing called Ladder of Laws. Laws higher up on the chain are more important thant those lower.

I.E. Constitution is supreme, and state laws come in second.

No state laws can overcome the constitution. It's scared people that let the states do it. It doesn't mean that they are still allowed to do it.

miko2d · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:43:29 PM »

lasersailor184: There's this thing called Ladder of Laws. Laws higher up on the chain are more important thant those lower.
I.E. Constitution is supreme, and state laws come in second.
No state laws can overcome the constitution. It's scared people that let the states do it. It doesn't mean that they are still allowed to do it.

That is not true. The Constitution is not above the States' laws. It separates which issues are reserved to the States and which are for the Federal Government to decide.
There are very few enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government and very few specific limitations on the powers of the States. So the powers of the Federal government are few and limited and those of states are unlimited.
There should be no case possible where a federal law would come into to conflict or override a state law unless either violates the Constitution.

That is all theoretical of course. In practice, the Constitution has no legal validity, only sentimental value.

miko

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2004, 04:53:46 PM »

No. The constitution cannot be changed by any of the states.

This leads to the thought that the constitution is more powerful then the states.

Everything written in the constitution is set in stone except for an ammendment. The constitution even specifically says that it's all powering about those rules given. But then it even says that anything not forbidden, or already given is free for the states to judge to do what they want.

Tarmac · « **Reply #22 on:** February 03, 2004, 05:22:08 PM »

Quote

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Didn't happen until the Fourteenth Amendment. Before then, a state had the right to stomp all over your freedom of speech, etc, as long as the Federal govt didn't do it.

Between the 14th and the slow process of amendment incorporation by the Supreme Court (basically where the Supreme Court declares that a right is covered by the 14th, and therefore applicable to the states), the constitution has eventually come to be regarded as a blanket set of protections which could be added to, but not taken away, by the states.

Quote

Article VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution clearly spells out that the Federal government is superior to the State government in the article commonly known as the supremacy clause. Unfortunately, in modern times it's arguable as to whether the Federal govt is making laws that are within its jurisdiction to make - but the Constitution does spell out that they are superior to state laws, constitutional or not.

miko2d · « **Reply #23 on:** February 03, 2004, 05:59:17 PM »

lasersailor184: No. The constitution cannot be changed by any of the states.
This leads to the thought that the constitution is more powerful then the states.

We are speaking purely theoretically here.
Yes - the Constitution cannot be changed by a State. That is how the States wanted it.
Of course any State can totally ignore the Constitution by leaving the Union - as there is nothing in the Constitution that denies tham that option and the ammendment to that effect was not adopted.
So the States comply with the Constitution on their own free will. Theoretically, of course.
Constitution cannot stop a State while a State can stop Constituition. I am not sure it qualifies as more powerfull.

miko

Tarmac · « **Reply #24 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:19:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
Of course any State can totally ignore the Constitution by leaving the Union - as there is nothing in the Constitution that denies tham that option and the ammendment to that effect was not adopted.
miko

Nothing in the Constitution; but that little detail called the Union Army might deny them that option.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #25 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:26:38 PM »

Thanks Tarmac. Was just about to pull that exact quote out.

Tarmac is right, while California could attempt to break off, we can decide to stop it if we want.

However, we could cut our losses, pull out the friendlies and just let it float away. I wouldn't mind too much.

I would also like to point out that states breaking off from the Union usually switch to the articles of confederation (assuming that they are a liberal state (which is mostly the case)). And the articles of confederation have failed twice so far. You'd think that they would see that the current system is near perfect and states don't have much power over the government.

Curval · « **Reply #26 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:28:50 PM »

it just doesn't "feel" like a good idea and.... guns have the wrong color aura and.... it's not very european to allow people to defend themselves. - lazs

lasz hits the nail on the head.

Kind of a "If I dont like it, you cant have it" mentality among them donuts. - dago

Hmmm....this appears to be a totally unprovoked attack.

Allow me to quote one of your own:

"12th Commandment: Thou shalt not pontificate about another country's social laws simply because they are different from your own."

Tarmac · « **Reply #27 on:** February 03, 2004, 06:53:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Tarmac is right, while California could attempt to break off, we can decide to stop it if we want.

Constitutionall, no we can't. There's nothing in the Constitution about succesion; either allowing it or allowing the other states or federal government to take action against it. Since the constitution was originally a contract entered into by the member states, those states should have the right to end the contract when it no longer serves their needs. The Union Army proved (might makes right) that this wasn't the case in the 1860's, however.

Quote

However, we could cut our losses, pull out the friendlies and just let it float away. I wouldn't mind too much.

Constitutionally, or at least in the spirit of liberty that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were written in, that would be the correct course of action. Let them go. The rest of the country would have no right to force them to stay.

Quote

I would also like to point out that states breaking off from the Union usually switch to the articles of confederation (assuming that they are a liberal state (which is mostly the case)). And the articles of confederation have failed twice so far. You'd think that they would see that the current system is near perfect and states don't have much power over the government.

The Articles of Confederation definately had its problems. But to say that the current system is near perfect is a value judgement, so I'll simply say that I disagree. It only takes one leak to set a ship sinking, and the Constitution, while an excellent model for government IMO, has a few leaks.

ed: Just out of curiosity; you said:

Quote

(assuming that they are a liberal state (which is mostly the case))

Did you mean "liberal" in the classical/European sense (oriented toward personal liberty) or in the hijacked democrat/socialist sense?

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 03, 2004, 10:18:46 PM »

I meant liberal as in someone who thinks the Articles of Confederation was a good thing. I.E. State's rights are more powerful then nation's rights.

miko2d · « **Reply #29 on:** February 04, 2004, 11:56:00 AM »

Tarmac: There's nothing in the Constitution about succesion; either allowing it or allowing the other states or federal government to take action against it.

Of course there is - about federal government lack of power to take action against it:

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And as for other states taking action to stop it:

Quote

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay ... engage in War, unless actually invaded.

...those states should have the right to end the contract when it no longer serves their needs. The Union Army proved (might makes right) that this wasn't the case in the 1860's, however.

More accurately, it proved that the Constitution has become defunct.

miko