I believe that each state should have the right to make firearms laws as they see fit. [More]I never did think this redeemed him enough to override this.
Or that middlemen should be used to funnel NRA "Political Victory Fund" contributors' money his way.
18 comments:
I'd say that it's either third party or stay home this time around for me. There's not a single candidate running who doesn't support gun control in the Dems or Repubs.
"I don't believe it's right for the federal government to get into the middle of this and decide firearms laws for the people of the state of New Jersey."
and that's why you support the repeal of the NFA and the GCA -- right, governor?
Why was it that Brian Aitken's sentence was commuted rather than given a full pardon? I've never been able to figure that out.
malegerski: They did not try for that--the immediate goal was to get him out and to pursue full restoration of rights later.
States to do as they please? No rights for us under the US Bill of Rights? That's not an American idea at all. Is that fat cocksucker Christie from New Jersey or East Germany?
Chas, I'm afraid Mr. Christie is right about the Constitution in this case, and you are dead wrong about it. The Bill of Rights was designed to restrict only the Federal government, not the States. If you'll note, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . ." Not the States. Not localities. Congress. The States could, and several did, have their own State religions even until the 1840s. States could and did impose restrictions on who could keep and bear arms. And they had every "right" to do so, according to the Constitution. Only until the dubious (the old-fashioned word for "complete crockpot") idea of "incorporation" had dribbled out of the mouths of Supreme Court blackrobes did anyone get the notion that the States could not establish religions, impose restrictions on speech and the ownership and carriage of firearms.
You reject the intent of the Founders in drafting the Constitution if you believe otherwise. I don't mean to convey the idea that I revere those words scrawled in iron-based ink on the dessicated skin of a dead sheep. Because I don't.
Brass, William Rawle disagrees with you about the Second Amendment. He's the guy Washington wanted to be his AG, and his "View of the Constitution" was standard text at Harvard until 1845 and Dartmouth until 1860. He specifically wrote:
“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
Mr. Codrea,
It doesn't appear that he disagrees with me at all. The amendment may be appealed to in regard to the several States, just as the Magna Carta may be and has been cited in legal cases, but any such appeal would not entail binding Constitutional matter.
There is a reason that many of the early State Constitutions contained something that looked exactly like the Bill of Rights. At that time, everyone understood the respective jurisdictions of the Federal and State governments.
"may be appealed to AS A RESTRAINT on both" isn't "binding"?
David,
Just because one appeals to it as a restraint does not mean that it is binding. One can say, "Help, help! Imprisonment is cruel and unusual punishment." Constitutionally speaking, "Cruel and unusual punishment" means "a punishment not prescribed by law." If a judge doesn't care about the strict meaning of particular terms of art, or the purpose and construction of the Constitution, he may very well say, "Yes, your intra-state liberties are protected by the Federal Constitution." And still be dead wrong.
An appeal is as binding as the blackrobes who wish pretend to accept it as any sort of legal substance. The fact remains that Constitutionally speaking, the States could and did pass any manner of regulation concerning such issues, notwithstanding the opinion of particular judges and contemporaneous personages.
Just not convincing me here. I get "the states could and did" part, because it happened, but you lose me on "Constitutionally speaking" part. That is not what Rawles says, and how you derive that conclusion is just not registering with me.
Regardless, SCOTUS has now ruled that the 2A is binding on the states via the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment.
Hmm... What other citizens' civil rights does Christie think that states should be able to deprive?
A dictatorship by the Governor of New Jersey would make everything run so much smoother and safer. Do not worry about the citizens' opinions because disenfranchisement will be be next as the citizens just complicate things.
David,
The lie that the 2nd Amendment applies only to the federal government has been repeated so often that it has become true. Though oddly, it seems to not apply to the federal government either. Regardless, the crafters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were very specific in their wording as is evident from a simple reading of the document. The 1st applied only to Congress ( i.e. The Federal Government) Whereas the 2nd stated the rights of the PEOPLE. Thus, stating in plain english that it applied to ALL forms and levels of government.
Modern lawyers and their ilk tend to believe that the law is theirs to interpret, much like ancient priests were necessary to interpret and intercede with the gods.
A couple points, and then I just have no more time to weigh in on this or the work will suffer: the contention that the BoR does not bind the states is simply not supported by reading it. Doubters go do that, paying particular attention to IV through VIII, and then come back and explain how those do not bind the states. It would help your case if you can cite a founding era authority, as I did at the start, as opposed to just expressing my opinion.
I also suggest this short essay
I'll continue to post reader comments.
I have the right to keep and bear arms as an American, regardless of what state I happen to be in. Believe it or not, even people in New Jersey have rights as Americans.
http://dispatchesfromheck.blogspot.com/2010/04/how-to-write-decision-in-mcdonald-v.html
Brass-so if some state passed a law that restricted First Amendment rights, that would be fine, say for example if Louisiana passed a law that forced you to register and pay a fee in order to be a member of the Southern Baptist Church, or any church or religion, or maybe any religion besides a select favored few. Or maybe if they passed a law limiting free speech rights to moderate points of view. Because like it or not, its the same damn thing. The Second Amendment is none negotiable and applies to all citizens of all states. The Tenth Amendment doesn't apply to gun rights.
Post a Comment