The Republican Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

I'm not going to object to your right to bear arms on any private land that isn't mine, and I probably have little problem with it on a variety of public/wilderness lands, but many of these laws take away the right of people to decide what is carried on to their own property, and they take away my right to be in an environment without them. I'm given no decision in the matter. Your right to have a concealed weapon has removed my right to have it around.

 

If you want to go somewhere to hunt meat, great. Go there. I don't have to. But in that case, I'm given the chance to make an informed decision about whether to go somewhere that guns are being used in the way they would have been used at the time of the writing of the bill of rights.

 

I'm not aware of such laws and doubt they exist. That would fly in the face of trespass law.

 

And you keep harping on the point that my right trumps yours. You have no right to be free from people with guns. That's not been recognized.

[Soxbadger]

I'm still not sure how someone can interpret the 2nd amended and believe that the founders believed it was important for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms but ONLY in your home. What purpose does that serve? Posner talks about this in his opinion and his answer is it doesn't. Historically there's no reason to believe that's what they believed, and grammatically it doesn't because it does not limit where your right begins and ends.

 

I dont think the constitution protects gun ownership for regular people at all. It provides protection for those of us who are in the militia.

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

And here even more interesting is the Illinois Constitution:

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the

individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed.

 

 

So I disagree. I think that the 2nd Amendment has explicit limitations and those limitations are supported by the Illinois constitution.

 

Otherwise the Illinois constitution is itself unconstitutional, because it gave a right to the state that surpasses what the US constitution allowed.

[Jenksismyhero]

This assumes a self-defense motive for the 2nd which wasn't really law until Heller.

 

Which only became an issue when governments started to ban the availability and use of guns because of a fear of crime. Self-defense became a lame argument in response.

[Soxbadger]

I think you're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, in a very general sense we're talking about how far government can intervene, but by your logic if the government can't restrict guns then it can't restrict anything. That's not reality and you know it. We have public policy arguments and I think guns are different from drugs or sex or whatever else. Each has to be looked at independently.

 

Why are guns, sex and drugs different?

 

Each of them makes you feel good, each of them could maybe save your life when they are used in the right circumstances, each of them could potentially cause harm to someone else.

 

And its not my logic, I dont prescribe to this fantasy land where drugs and guns are different. My logic is that the govt has the right to protect other people, but should not have the right to prevent me from doing something just because it may hurt someone else.

 

Thus, my logic, is that if you want guns, fine. But the govt can make laws that state if you hurt someone with a gun, something bad happens to you.

 

If you want drugs, fine. But the govt can make laws that state if you hurt someone will taking drugs, something bad happens to you.

 

See how that logically makes sense.

[Jenksismyhero]

I dont think the constitution protects gun ownership for regular people at all. It provides protection for those of us who are in the militia.

 

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

And here even more interesting is the Illinois Constitution:

 

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

 

Subject only to the police power, the right of the

individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be

infringed.

 

 

So I disagree. I think that the 2nd Amendment has explicit limitations and those limitations are supported by the Illinois constitution.

 

Otherwise the Illinois constitution is itself unconstitutional, because it gave a right to the state that surpasses what the US constitution allowed.

 

That's step one which has already been decided. Step two is limiting that right.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why are guns, sex and drugs different?

 

Each of them makes you feel good, each of them could maybe save your life when they are used in the right circumstances, each of them could potentially cause harm to someone else.

 

And its not my logic, I dont prescribe to this fantasy land where drugs and guns are different. My logic is that the govt has the right to protect other people, but should not have the right to prevent me from doing something just because it may hurt someone else.

 

Thus, my logic, is that if you want guns, fine. But the govt can make laws that state if you hurt someone with a gun, something bad happens to you.

 

If you want drugs, fine. But the govt can make laws that state if you hurt someone will taking drugs, something bad happens to you.

 

See how that logically makes sense.

 

So you're cool getting rid of DUI laws? That's your logic here.

 

Edit: and they already have laws that if you hurt someone something bad happens to you. Why isn't that enough?

 

Edited December 11, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

I'm not aware of such laws and doubt they exist. That would fly in the face of trespass law.

 

And you keep harping on the point that my right trumps yours. You have no right to be free from people with guns. That's not been recognized.

But you know what? You guys harp all the time on rights that get taken away. Here's a right I want, I can present a case for, but you don't care. You have a right to force me to be around gun all the time.

 

Tennessee has been more than happy to pass laws forcing business owners to accept concealed weapons on their property, for one example. It's very likely to do that even more so this year by making it illegal for any business owner to ban weapons in their parking lots.

[Balta1701]

So you're cool getting rid of DUI laws? That's your logic here.

Yes, I agree, people carrying concealed weapons are a good comparison to drunk drivers as they're needlessly putting everyone around them in danger.

[Soxbadger]

So you're cool getting rid of DUI laws? That's your logic here.

 

If youre cool with giving everyone guns, Im cool with no DUI laws.

 

Both presuppose that you are going to do something to hurt someone else. Driving drunk in and of itself, doesnt hurt anyone.

[StrangeSox]

The repercussions for ignoring posted "no guns" signs at private businesses are minimal anyway and a lot of the nutty GRA's advocate ignoring the signs. e.g. this crazy thread where a bunch of SEAL Team 6 members (lol) describe how they would have completely prevented the Aurora, CO theater shooting.

 

This is the hypocrisy that Balta was talking about earlier. These same guys are staunch conservatives opposed to the Socialist Marxist Nobama, yet they frequently violate others' private property rights.

Edited December 11, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, I agree, people carrying concealed weapons are a good comparison to drunk drivers as they're needlessly putting everyone around them in danger.

 

Oh yeah, TOTALLY the same.

[Balta1701]

Oh yeah, TOTALLY the same.

You said it

 

Anyway, it's a fair comparison, in both cases you're making a decision that puts both you as the carrier/driver and everyone else around you at an increased risk of injury and death by having/operating a device in an unsafe way, the only difference is the magnitude of the change is somewhat worse for DUI's. In one case, it's a constitutionally protected right. In the other, you can go to jail.

[Jenksismyhero]

You said it

 

Anyway, it's a fair comparison, in both cases you're making a decision that puts both you as the carrier/driver and everyone else around you at an increased risk of injury and death by having/operating a device in an unsafe way, the only difference is the magnitude of the change is somewhat worse for DUI's. In one case, it's a constitutionally protected right. In the other, you can go to jail.

 

One involves the inability to control your actions, the other does not. That's not really comparable.

[StrangeSox]

question for the lawyers:

 

the opinion is stayed 180 days to give the legislature time to craft some alternative, Constitution-complying restrictions. What would happen to somebody who violated the current law in the next 180 days? It's already been ruled unconstitutional.

[Soxbadger]

One involves the inability to control your actions, the other does not. That's not really comparable.

 

That is a completely faulty premise.

 

Some people can drive fine at .08, some people can not.

 

Some people can handle a gun fine, some people can not.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

question for the lawyers:

 

the opinion is stayed 180 days to give the legislature time to craft some alternative, Constitution-complying restrictions. What would happen to somebody who violated the current law in the next 180 days? It's already been ruled unconstitutional.

 

Its the law for another 180 days. Otherwise there is no point in the stay.

[StrangeSox]

But what happens if I appeal my fine/charge as an unconstitutional violation of my rights?

[Jenksismyhero]

That is a completely faulty premise.

 

Some people can drive fine at .08, some people can not.

 

Some people can handle a gun fine, some people can not.

 

And by law you're legally able to drink up to that .08 but with guns you can't have it except with an overly restricted exception of being in your home. And that's the problem with Illinois law. You act as if I'm arguing gun rights should be limitless or something.

[Jenksismyhero]

But what happens if I appeal my fine/charge as an unconstitutional violation of my rights?

 

I don't think it's technically unconstitutional until after the 180 days have passed. The opinion isn't valid until then.

[StrangeSox]

But what if the court date is 200 days from now? Can I be convicted and sentenced/fined for a law that was ruled unconstitutional? Why wouldn't the courts simply rule it unconstitutional again and overturn my conviction?

[Soxbadger]

And by law you're legally able to drink up to that .08 but with guns you can't have it except with an overly restricted exception of being in your home. And that's the problem with Illinois law. You act as if I'm arguing gun rights should be limitless or something.

 

What I am arguing is that the people of Illinois decided that having guns in public places is a danger. Based on the govts ability to restrict other similarly dangerous activity, that seems reasonable.

 

Instead of alcohol replace it with marijuana, and I am not even allowed to do that in my own home. Replace it with buying hookers, and I am not allowed to do it in my home.

 

So based on the fact the govt is allowed to completely ban certain activity, restricting gun ownership to the home seems reasonable.

[Soxbadger]

But what if the court date is 200 days from now? Can I be convicted and sentenced/fined for a law that was ruled unconstitutional? Why wouldn't the courts simply rule it unconstitutional again and overturn my conviction?

 

Presumably because the court was telling the legislators to draft the law in a way that fits their ruling so that they can say its okay.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

But what if the court date is 200 days from now? Can I be convicted and sentenced/fined for a law that was ruled unconstitutional? Why wouldn't the courts simply rule it unconstitutional again and overturn my conviction?

 

The judge on your court date is going to be bound by whatever law is in effect at the time of that judgment. So if your court date is 200 days from now and the legislature enacts a law in response to this 7th circuit ruling, your judge will be bound by his interpretation of that new law and the prior decisions made about gun rights.

[Jenksismyhero]

What I am arguing is that the people of Illinois decided that having guns in public places is a danger. Based on the govts ability to restrict other similarly dangerous activity, that seems reasonable.

 

Instead of alcohol replace it with marijuana, and I am not even allowed to do that in my own home. Replace it with buying hookers, and I am not allowed to do it in my home.

 

So based on the fact the govt is allowed to completely ban certain activity, restricting gun ownership to the home seems reasonable.

 

But it's infringing on a constitutional right that requires a higher standard than the standard that applies to your non-existent right to smoke pot or bang a hooker. I know what your saying and I don't disagree, all i'm saying is there's a reason why different standards and considerations are used in determining the legality of those acts. I'm all about letting people drink alcohol, but i'm totally behind the idea that you shouldn't be able to stroll down my street getting drunk with a bunch of kids around. That doesn't mean my stance of limited government generally is somehow less valid. It's not an all or nothing scenario.

Edited December 11, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

The judge on your court date is going to be bound by whatever law is in effect at the time of that judgment. So if your court date is 200 days from now and the legislature enacts a law in response to this 7th circuit ruling, your judge will be bound by his interpretation of that new law and the prior decisions made about gun rights.

 

But then I appeal the ruling, presumably to the 7th. How could my conviction possibly stand at that point?

 

I understand and agree with the intent of staying the ruling, I just wonder what would actually happen if you were to violate current law that will undoubtedly be unconstitutional in the near future. Maybe that hassle of still having to go through the courts would be enough of a deterrent for all but the most hard-headed bozos.