Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
U.S. House Passes NRA-backed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="vvvvvvv" data-source="post: 1661474" data-attributes="member: 5151"><p>Since <em>McDonald</em> and <em>Heller</em>, that's basically left up to the Courts to decide.</p><p></p><p>There are longstanding prohibitions in place, and those prohibitions are to be presumed as Constitutional until decided otherwise.</p><p></p><p>The part of Section 1 you quoted (the Due Process Clause) does not authorize Congress to mandate Constitutional carry among the several states. However, another part (the Privileges or Immunities Clause) does. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". However, the Supreme Court refuses to revisit and fix the flawed precedents that neuter Privileges or Immunities even after admitting themselves in <em>McDonald</em> that the precedents are flawed and merit revisiting. The only reason given to not revisit those precedents is that they weren't addressed directly.</p><p></p><p>But according to <em>McDonald</em>, the Second Amendment is a "right" conferred by the government and subject to due process, rather than a Right protected by the Constitution and therefore a Privilege or Immunity of being a United States citizen. And that is exactly what the NRA wanted when they took the case. Due Process incorporation opened the door to a vastly expanded industry of Second Amendment litigation, which is what organizations like the NRA need to stay in business. Privileges or Immunities incorporation would have severely limited threats to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and "2A-protection" organizations can't exactly stay in business without a threat.</p><p></p><p>Now it's up to the Court to decide what level of scrutiny infringements upon the Second Amendment should be subject to. Under Due Process, the level of scrutiny required by the Court will determine what is and isn't an infringement. Thanks to the NRA's best efforts in <em>McDonald</em>, the best we can hope for in protecting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is for the Court to go with a requirement of strict scrutiny and hope to God we don't get a decision setting rational basis as the standard. Even intermediate/heightened scrutiny will result in an unacceptable level of infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="vvvvvvv, post: 1661474, member: 5151"] Since [I]McDonald[/I] and [I]Heller[/I], that's basically left up to the Courts to decide. There are longstanding prohibitions in place, and those prohibitions are to be presumed as Constitutional until decided otherwise. The part of Section 1 you quoted (the Due Process Clause) does not authorize Congress to mandate Constitutional carry among the several states. However, another part (the Privileges or Immunities Clause) does. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". However, the Supreme Court refuses to revisit and fix the flawed precedents that neuter Privileges or Immunities even after admitting themselves in [I]McDonald[/I] that the precedents are flawed and merit revisiting. The only reason given to not revisit those precedents is that they weren't addressed directly. But according to [I]McDonald[/I], the Second Amendment is a "right" conferred by the government and subject to due process, rather than a Right protected by the Constitution and therefore a Privilege or Immunity of being a United States citizen. And that is exactly what the NRA wanted when they took the case. Due Process incorporation opened the door to a vastly expanded industry of Second Amendment litigation, which is what organizations like the NRA need to stay in business. Privileges or Immunities incorporation would have severely limited threats to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and "2A-protection" organizations can't exactly stay in business without a threat. Now it's up to the Court to decide what level of scrutiny infringements upon the Second Amendment should be subject to. Under Due Process, the level of scrutiny required by the Court will determine what is and isn't an infringement. Thanks to the NRA's best efforts in [I]McDonald[/I], the best we can hope for in protecting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms is for the Court to go with a requirement of strict scrutiny and hope to God we don't get a decision setting rational basis as the standard. Even intermediate/heightened scrutiny will result in an unacceptable level of infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
U.S. House Passes NRA-backed National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Legislation
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom