In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

POLL: Should cities have the "right" to ban guns?

Comments

  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    Of 25,000 plus people, 42% think it OK for cities to BAN guns?

    Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Cities don't get rights. Only people have rights.
  • crash2usafcrash2usaf Member Posts: 4,094
    edited November -1
    Damn city slicker anti-gun folks can go find a telephone pole and impale themselves on it for all I care[:0][:D]
  • triple223taptriple223tap Member Posts: 385 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Come June, the SCOTUS will answer the question.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Yes, they should be allowed to ban guns.
    If we get back to the constitution of our founders, cities, states, towns, would all have the authority to do whatever they wished with respect to guns. Constitutionally speaking, the PEOPLE of the states and local communities should be making those decisions. Much rather that, than some federal court dictating what rights can and can not be enjoyed.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    Yes, they should be allowed to ban guns.
    If we get back to the constitution of our founders, cities, states, towns, would all have the authority to do whatever they wished with respect to guns. Constitutionally speaking, the PEOPLE of the states and local communities should be making those decisions. Much rather that, than some federal court dictating what rights can and can not be enjoyed.


    Thats all fine an well, provided that the state constitution is silent on gun ownership. Some states have/had an amendment mimicing the Second Amendment. If that is present in the state constitution, then NO they don't have that right.

    I agree with you though, it SHOULD be a States Rights issue.
  • nyforesternyforester Member Posts: 2,575 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Just my 2 cents on this issue.
    Here in Upstate NY, the individual Counties have set their own laws in respect to handguns. Some allow carry conceal, some allow only target and hunting....NO CARRY CONCEAL
    I live in Saratoga County (20 miles north of the Capital Albany. There is no carry conceal.
    The next county to the horth is Warren Co. They issue Concealed.
    My * here is that NY State issues a NY State Pistol Permit, and then you have to follow what ever rules your county regulates ??????????? What kind of Nazi Rule is this.
    Now I'm pissed just thinking about it again !

    Freemind has it correct
    WTH
    Abort Cuomo
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    Yes, they should be allowed to ban guns.
    If we get back to the constitution of our founders, cities, states, towns, would all have the authority to do whatever they wished with respect to guns. Constitutionally speaking, the PEOPLE of the states and local communities should be making those decisions. Much rather that, than some federal court dictating what rights can and can not be enjoyed.


    OK salzo, I admit I have no idea where you're coming from here, since my reading of the Constitution points to the fact that federal law is the law of the land. If the right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the US Constitution, this should be a non-existent argument. Granted, it's being infringed on all levels, but none of it is binding on us, because the right to keep and bear arms is not gov't granted, and not dependent on the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

    I'd say that closes the case, right there.
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    Yes, they should be allowed to ban guns.
    If we get back to the constitution of our founders, cities, states, towns, would all have the authority to do whatever they wished with respect to guns. Constitutionally speaking, the PEOPLE of the states and local communities should be making those decisions. Much rather that, than some federal court dictating what rights can and can not be enjoyed.


    OK salzo, I admit I have no idea where you're coming from here, since my reading of the Constitution points to the fact that federal law is the law of the land. If the right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the US Constitution, this should be a non-existent argument. Granted, it's being infringed on all levels, but none of it is binding on us, because the right to keep and bear arms is not gov't granted, and not dependent on the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

    I'd say that closes the case, right there.


    Yep, right up until they ban and or refuse to "allow" you to make use of them, with a multi-year prison term hanging over your head for violating our blessed government's orders.

    Then what will America do?

    I suspect that Mr. and Mrs. America will be tripping all over themselves in the stampede to get them turned in and/or will follow every letter of every "law" passed relating to firearms infringements.[;)]
  • n/an/a Member Posts: 168,427
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    Yes, they should be allowed to ban guns.
    If we get back to the constitution of our founders, cities, states, towns, would all have the authority to do whatever they wished with respect to guns. Constitutionally speaking, the PEOPLE of the states and local communities should be making those decisions. Much rather that, than some federal court dictating what rights can and can not be enjoyed.


    OK salzo, I admit I have no idea where you're coming from here, since my reading of the Constitution points to the fact that federal law is the law of the land. If the right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the US Constitution, this should be a non-existent argument. Granted, it's being infringed on all levels, but none of it is binding on us, because the right to keep and bear arms is not gov't granted, and not dependent on the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

    I'd say that closes the case, right there.


    I will disagree with you, and here is why.

    CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW, to me means just that. It never stated that congress AND the states shall pass no law. It, at least to me, limits the feds from meddleing in that area. If we look back in history, some states required the citizenry to put excess powder into a "community" safe place, after the war. The feds didn't step in, and apparently the citizens found it not over stepping bounds.

    IF it were to be done over, I agree that the Feds AND the states should be bound to pass NO laws where the feds are supposed to be held away from. A right is a right, correct? I agree with your premise, but disagree with the way the constitution was written.
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
    quote:Originally posted by salzo
    Yes, they should be allowed to ban guns.
    If we get back to the constitution of our founders, cities, states, towns, would all have the authority to do whatever they wished with respect to guns. Constitutionally speaking, the PEOPLE of the states and local communities should be making those decisions. Much rather that, than some federal court dictating what rights can and can not be enjoyed.


    OK salzo, I admit I have no idea where you're coming from here, since my reading of the Constitution points to the fact that federal law is the law of the land. If the right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the US Constitution, this should be a non-existent argument. Granted, it's being infringed on all levels, but none of it is binding on us, because the right to keep and bear arms is not gov't granted, and not dependent on the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

    I'd say that closes the case, right there.


    You would be correct IF the constitution, as WAS WRITTEN by the founders, prohibited the states from infringing on those rights enumerated in the so called bill of rights-it does not do any such thing. The so called bill of rights, was a prohibition placed on the federal government, and not the states. The states were the authority to decide how those rights were to be dealt with, and what type of infringing would be permisable, as the people of the states felt would be necessary. Take the first amendment- The first amendment prohibits the federal government from involving itself with speech, religious and issues dealing with the press. Several states collected taxes for a specific church, and had religious requirements for office. These activities were not unconstitutional, because the constitution did not prohibit this state power-quite the contrary, it PROTECTED the states authority to meddle in those areas, without interference from the federal government. Only with the addition of the 14th amendment, was the "theory" created that the bill of rights is binding on the states. And the 14th amenment has evolved in the minds of some, to protect the people from state meddling in the enumerated rights in the so called bill of rights. The 14th does no sduch thing, and it certainly says no such thing. What the 14th amendment really says, is that the federal government will be the arbiter as to what rights can and can not be enjoyed, notwithstanding the bill of rights. God does not give us these rights, the bill of rights does not protect these rights, the federal government decides what rights we can and can not enjoy. The 14th amendment does not protect our rights-the 14th amendment takes rights away from the people.
    The authority to have state sanctioned religious practice, is not unconstitutional because the constitution prohibits such activities. It is illegal because the federal government has decided it should be illegal.
  • gunphreakgunphreak Member Posts: 1,791 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Figure the 9th and 10th Amendments into the equation, and you suddenly have the law of the land set in stone, and every area that is not addressed is the area of the states and people as they are applicable. Since the 2nd Amendment is addressed, it becomes untouchable.

    I guess it should be pointed out that the shot heard round the world was not fired over taxes; it was fired over a confiscation order. Good thing they didn't obey, isn't it???
  • salzosalzo Member Posts: 6,396 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by gunphreak
    Figure the 9th and 10th Amendments into the equation, and you suddenly have the law of the land set in stone, and every area that is not addressed is the area of the states and people as they are applicable. Since the 2nd Amendment is addressed, it becomes untouchable.




    Not really. The ninth and tenth do not "nullify" the rest of the constitution, nor does it make the 2nd amendment "untouchable" against the states.
    The ninth amendment simply states that the enumeration of certain rights does not mean that other rights that are not enumerated can be infringed upon by the federal government.
    The tenth amendment merely states that powers not given to the federal government by the constitution, and powers not prohibited from the states by the constitution, are reserved to the states.
    The second amendment is a prohibition of the federal government-you are working under the false notion that the second amendment was to also prohibit the states-it does not. The ninth and tenth amendment have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a state can enact gun control.
    To understand the bill of rights, you must first understand the constitution. Then you must understand, that the bill of rights is completely irrelevant, and redundant, because all of those rights enumerated are already protected, by the body of the constitution. The feds are already prohibited by the constitution from involving itself in rights issues, because the constitution gives the federal government no such power.
    Many founders were opposed to the insertion of a so called bill of rights, because it was redundant, and because many would believe "other" rights could be interefered with because, those certain rights enumrated in the bill of rights were given special mention. Those founders were right, and their fears have been realized-but not only does the federal government believe they can meddle in those unenumerated areas, they now assume the power to meddle even with the enumerated rights-and make no mistake, any FEDERAL LAW OR ACTION that would prohibit a city from prohibiting firearms, is IN DEFIANCE of the constitution, and the bill of rights. Everything is upside down out there.
Sign In or Register to comment.