Just like people who selectively pick and choose Bible verses to support their point, that is exactly what is being done to the Constitution.

If the current Supreme Court can somehow justify telling states they cannot place certain types of restrictions on guns because their possession is a fundamental right provided by the Constitution, how do these same originalists insist that a more fundamental right necessary for the existence of democracy, voting in elections, can be restricted?

(39) comments

mrnatural1

Can't find a crack in this LTE. Well argued.

jsklinelga

As soon as I heard the NY gun law decision I researched whether businesses could ban concealed carry on their premises. I would not want to be walking around Wal-Mart with every Joe Blow carrying a weapon. Then I realized how easily guns could be controlled. If most every business in Maryland prohibited concealed carry it would certainly limit a person's ability to carry. And would they constantly leave their guns in the car? Or avoid a possible felony by leaving their gun at home before driving through McDonalds?

I would not want to see a wave of gunslingers walking the streets. BUT these folks are maligning a SCOTUS decision when it is absolutely correct. Two people with the exact same right to have a permit must be treated equally. One cannot be denied by an arbitrary decision issued by a governing board while the other receives a permit. That is definitely an infringement on their liberty via the 14th Amendment.

Relating this to the legislation on voting or SCOTUS reasoning on voting laws is a bit of a long left field foul ball.

Greg F

Actually, I won't mind if people had concealed carry...I'd carry by now if MD didn't have its asinine law/policy that NY did until just recently. Now...I will go purchase something that I can carry and go get my permit. I want to be able to down someone who poses a direct threat to life and limb. I will make sure whatever ammo I have is sufficient to do the job. You don't take a slingshot to a gunfight. Worst, you don't go in unarmed completely. Sounds like "duck and cover" type mentality there. Duck and fire back. And that is a liberal talking. Dems who vote to control and ban are not getting my vote. Soon enough I will move to where I am not banished from purchasing what I feel is necessary as well to protect the home or deal with the eventual societal collapse that seems closer and closer. They will be passed on as well. They will not carry insurance as that is back-door registration. Registration has already led to confiscation in CA and elsewhere. It's only a matter of time on the slippery slope of gun laws (we have many, and many that could be improved and enforced) that will have someone coming to our doors to take what is our right to own and bear. No, I am not a fan of NRA...they're insane and are not what they were founded to do since the 70s after being taken over by extremists and lobbyists for gun manufacturers. NSSF is like that and I have actively worked with them on founding "don't lie for the other guy" and Project ChildSafe. way back decades ago...and they are about land preservation, education, safety and sports. We need more of that vs NRA for sure. No, not everybody should own one and a full background check is fine...especially for initial purchase. Not a fan of having to do FFL for even a long gun I've owned for decades though...but do see it's use. Registration? Hell no. As far as the SCOTUS issue, they have an agenda now that is political and the system has been broken. SCOTUS life terms must be ended, period. 8-12 years max. Clarence Thomas should be jailed for his obvious conflicts of interest and affiliation with a seditious spouse and would not pass a background check if he were installed today. We have two major liars in SCOTUS now who swore an oath, then reversed immediately when the vote came up. IMPEACHMENT is what that should result in...no I don't like AOC either, but that is one point that she made that should happen...and no I don't like Schumer or Pelosi either...but the RRR is far worse, clinging ever still to the big lie and actively working to foster it being continued. Rafael (Ted) Cruz is more like the CASTRO wannabe his father fought to overturn. Must be something in the water that RRR all seem to want to act like dictators.

veritas

After reading a sampling of your posts, the prospect of you walking around with a gun on your hip is exceedingly unsettling. Perhaps your time would be better spent in anger management counseling than in procuring the requisite approval(s) to "carry."

jsklinelga

Politely -apples and oranges. The voting laws that protect voting security and are under judicial scrutiny to ensure np one is discriminated against are a completely different animal than subjective gun control laws. A right be it voting or gun ownership cannot be infringed upon by subjective oversight. That is what the NY law violated.

Pro-Choice/Privileged W. Woman

Cherry-picking which traditions we will honor and which we will discard is a slippery slope. If any court majority can decide which historic tradition is justified among competing traditions, then we can all claim originalism as our judicial philosophy. If anything counts, then everything counts....speaking to this point.

Newsom signs California gun bill modeled after Texas abortion law

By Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN

Updated 4:04 PM EDT, Fri July 22, 2022

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/07/22/politics/california-newsom-gun-bill-texas-abortion-law/index.html

(CNN)California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday signed a bill into law that allows private citizens to bring civil action against anyone who manufactures, distributes, transports or imports assault weapons or ghost guns, which are banned in the state.

California Senate Bill 1327 is modeled after a Texas law that allows private citizens to bring civil litigation against abortion providers or anyone who assists a pregnant person in obtaining an abortion after as early as six weeks of pregnancy. The US Supreme Court in December allowed Texas' six-week abortion ban to remain in effect, which prompted Newsom, who has been supportive of abortion rights and pro-gun control, to say he was "outraged" by the court's decision and direct his staff to draft a similar bill to regulate guns.

"We believe this will be litigated in the Supreme Court and we believe the Supreme Court will be challenged. Because if there's any principle left whatsoever -- and that's an open ended question -- with this Supreme Court, there is no way they can deny us the right to move in this direction," he said after signing the bill at Santa Monica College, the site of a 2013 shooting spree.

If anything counts...then everything counts.....or what is good enough for Texas is good enough for California...and SCOTUS should uphold this law...

jsklinelga

Pro choice

What?// Comparing the constitutional similarities involved in legislating gun control and abortion is absurd. The writers speak of ?historic traditions? What is the real historic tradition of abortion? Certainly not what was egregiously stepped upon by the Roe ruling. Hopefully this man is the Democrat nominee for President.

gabrielshorn2013

Do you really have to ask that question, jsk? There is a historical case for abortion going back thousands of years. Abortion was a fairly common practice until the late 19th century when women found out that they became unexpectedly or unwantingly pregnant. There were many over-the-counter abortifacient tonics that a woman could get from her pharmacist, drink, then wait for the resulting abortion. There were also "tonic salesmen" that sold such tonics. Unfortunately, there was no FDA at that time, and many of the concoctions were poisonous. It was the AMA that pushed to make abortion illegal because of the poisoning, not the abortions themselves. However, they also didn't like the competition from midwives in a woman's reproductive health. The church had no issue with abortion either, until after "the quickening", where a mother felt the fetus stir in the womb. Their later objections didn't come into effect until the 20th century. So what happened in the church before then? I don't recall an 11th commandment being added to the bottom of the first ten, stating "though shalt not abort thy fruit". Here is a reference for you.

https://www.amazon.com/When-Abortion-Was-Crime-1867-1973/dp/0520216571/ref=sr_1_1?crid=NN0B1M6K1V15&keywords=Leslie+J.+Reagan&qid=1658767374&sprefix=leslie+j.+reagan%2Caps%2C130&sr=8-1

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0831S4XB2/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o02?ie=UTF8&psc=1

jsklinelga

Gabe

"to make abortion illegal because of the poisoning, not the abortions themselves."

Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

gabrielshorn2013

Your comment makes no sense, jsk. Women were being poisoned and dying because of the poisonous concoctions that were being sold to induce abortion. Making abortion illegal was to protect the mother’s health, not the fetus. Abortions were common practice, and there was no religious or moral objection to abortion before “the quickening”. You need to read up on the historical context of the issue. Do we have such a risk of poisoning now, as it was back in the late 18th century? Absolutely not.

Another reference for you: https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/23/health/abortion-history-in-united-states/index.html

public-redux

nelga, What do you think is the “real historic tradition of abortion”?

shiftless88

jsk; where is the right to Viagra spelled out in the Constitution?

public-redux

C’mon, that’s nonsense.

public-redux

Well done, gabe.

I keep wondering when the anti-choicers are going to realize that they are political progressives trying to overthrow tradition and impose their “enlightened” and “modern” ideas on society.

Pro-Choice/Privileged W. Woman

Me too….you can lead a horse to water….

public-redux

You’ve gone and reminded me of one of my all-time fave bumper stickers. I saw it just once, 25-30 years ago. “You can send me to college but you can’t make me think”

Piedmontgardener

Kind of apples and oranges here. Heller clearly states that 2A can be regulated. That's a legislative activity. Voting rights cases are generally consituted under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. Each have a particular framework that doesn't lend itself to this type of analysis - it's facile and a political statement, more than anything else. I'd expect better of academics who hold themselves out as particularly informed.

MD1756

Read the section you reference and you have your answer as to how the states can put requirements on voting. Congress then has the right, by law, to alter such regulations (except for the places for choosing senators). Article 1 Section 8 says nothing about citizens right to arms, that is in the 2nd Amendment where the right is given to the people, not the federal or even state government. Too change the, the 2nd Amendment, as I've said before, needs to be changed so that all of these law suits can go away. Gun control needs to be done but it needs to be done legally.

gabrielshorn2013

☝️☝️☝️ md1756 👍👍👍

gary4books

MD = exactly right.

gary4books

"Do you write what you mean? Or do you mean what you write?"

And that is the problem with the Second Amendment. Short. Sweet. But open to so many different was to read. I want to say "I know how to read. I know what it says." But many very honest people say "That is not what it means ..." And I suggest we find a way to word it that we can all agree on. And then fix it with another amendment. That works for me.

threecents

The problem is that too many are fine with it the way it is, and they trust the NRA.

jsklinelga

Picking and choosing? Cherry picking? Plus a little comparative analogy twisting. \

bhall74

jsk, exactly what I would expect from a couple of progressives. I feel sorry for their students because I suspect there is little room in their class for debate or discussion, it's all the Professor's way or the highway.

public-redux

Which of their classes have you taken?

bhall74

Another snarky comment from pubic. That's about all you contribute to these FNP pages, snarky comments.

gabrielshorn2013

And yet you didn't answer the question. Why not?

public-redux

bhall, Looks like your keyboard is sticking again. With respect to the topic, I thought you were speaking from first hand knowledge and not just BSing.

gabrielshorn2013

Says who, bhall? I guess you never went to college then. Try a reasoned, factual rebuttal rather than an ad hominem attack.

bhall74

So now calling someone a progressive is no longer a badge of honor for them but an ad hominem attack? Says who?

gabrielshorn2013

Read your entire comment, bhall. That's the ad hominemI. Which of their points do you disagree with, and why?

threecents

BH74, Please stop with the bile spitting. Try being a gentleman, like you were the other day. Or did someone highjack your computer?

phydeaux994

Let’s debate Mr. Hall. If you had your druthers what would America look like to you? Who would govern? Would you be for suppressing voting by minorities and taking away women’s Rights for full citizenship? Would you be for Immigration reform to allow immigrants to come in to address our County’s need for millions of workers for jobs Americans refuse to do? What would make you happy to see what you envision America to be? A real two Party system or gridlock in Congress that favors one Party rule. If you and others did that perhaps we could work on compromises that help all Americans, not just Conservative or Liberal citizens. Last time I asked you this question you said NO which kind of shuts the door on you giving an inch of your way or the Highway.

bhall74

Dang, fido, all you do is ask questions. Tell you what, you answer all of those questions first and then I'll think about whether to respond to you. By the way, what is there about your past that you are trying so hard to make up for and get redemption?

phydeaux994

When your answer would embarrass you, make a dimwit of you, make you look uninformed and foolish, you just say something stupid. Every time. You got NOTHING!! But I’ll keep trying. Peace.✌️😷

Hayduke2

Sorry bhall, it appears their take and article is paving the way the for reasoned debate and discussion. You probably can't see that though because you immediately go "tribal".

gabrielshorn2013

How so, jsk? Care to give an example?

Hayduke2

jsk - it appears you are cherry picking the article and have provided no substantive examples - care to elaborate your last fragment.

olefool

Chirp...Chirp...Chirp.... The silence is deafening.....

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. No vulgar, racist, sexist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, not personal attacks or ad hominem criticisms.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Be civil. Don't threaten. Don't lie. Don't bait. Don't degrade others.
No trolling. Stay on topic.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
No deceptive names. Apparently misleading usernames are not allowed.
Say it once. No repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link for abusive posts.

Thank you for reading!

Please log in, or sign up for a new account and purchase a subscription to read or post comments.