3 ms·

> In other words, can California (or any State) really prohibit magazines with more than 10 rounds? Can they really prohibit any kind of carry (concealed or not

> In other words, can California (or any State) really prohibit magazines with more than 10 rounds? Can they really prohibit any kind of carry (concealed or not)? Where exactly is it that they --the government-- acquired the right to do such things. The tenth amendment?

jeffdavis 7y ago
The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "the people", therefore the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is "prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States", and therefore the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Even Antonin Scalia's opinion in Heller allowed that gun regulation was not entirely forbidden by the 2nd amendment. Exactly how much is allowed was left pretty unclear. But insofar as some is allowed, the ability of the States to do it is specified in the 10th.
  - jeffdavis 7y ago
    ...and to the extent that a law does violate the 2nd Amendment, it is forbidden for the states to enforce such a law (and the 10th Amendment doesn't change that). I don't see the relevance of the 10th Amendment to this particular discussion. EDIT: I see. The person to whom you replied seemed to be looking for the power somewhere, and you are just saying that the states powers are not enumerated (as the federal powers are).
robomartin 7y ago
> The tenth amendment? IANSL, but I don’t think so. That would mean states could regulate anything in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech. That makes no sense to me at all because it would effectively make the BofR optional.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  The 10th Amendment says that the powers not forbidden to the states, or granted to the Feds, are left to the States, or the people. Insofar as the 2nd amendment permits gun regulation (the exact contours have not yet been established by the courts), that power is still in the hands of the states. State regulations on public carry are not a new idea: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/firearm-regionalism-and-public-carry https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/firearm-regionalism-and...
  - robomartin 7y ago
    Yeah, I don't know. This starts getting into the deep technical details of law, history, precedent, etc. I have a feeling that, once you reach these depths, only people with the requisite legal training and knowledge can voice opinion with any degree of authority. I suspect these are matters still waiting for the "Mother of all Supreme Court Cases". I wish we would take a solid year of time and have the SCOTUS, once and for all, look at this intricate puzzle and lend clarity to a very messy set of situations. Any outcome would be better than the legal limbo in which exist on this matter. I would much prefer a society without guns BTW. That said, I am not diluted enough to think this is even remotely in the real of the plausible. That's why I prefer to push back against wasting energy trying to go for bans, confiscations and buy-backs that will never happen. We need to go after the criminal or disturbed minds that seek to cause harm, regardless of the means through which they might accomplish this --from box cutters, through pressure cookers and, yes, guns. I firmly believe this is an attainable goal. Far more attainable than clashing with the second amendment. This goal isn't without issues. For example, there are privacy laws that, quite literally, prevent a doctor from reporting someone who they believe might cause harm to others. Nothing is simple. Some things are simpler than others. That does not mean they are easy.

jeffdavis 7y ago

The 2nd Amendment specifically refers to "the people", therefore the power to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms is "prohibited by it [the Constitution] to the States", and therefore the right to keep and bear arms is reserved to the people.

roywiggins 7y ago
Even Antonin Scalia's opinion in Heller allowed that gun regulation was not entirely forbidden by the 2nd amendment. Exactly how much is allowed was left pretty unclear. But insofar as some is allowed, the ability of the States to do it is specified in the 10th.
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  ...and to the extent that a law does violate the 2nd Amendment, it is forbidden for the states to enforce such a law (and the 10th Amendment doesn't change that). I don't see the relevance of the 10th Amendment to this particular discussion. EDIT: I see. The person to whom you replied seemed to be looking for the power somewhere, and you are just saying that the states powers are not enumerated (as the federal powers are).

robomartin 7y ago

> The tenth amendment? IANSL, but I don’t think so. That would mean states could regulate anything in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech. That makes no sense to me at all because it would effectively make the BofR optional.

roywiggins 7y ago
The 10th Amendment says that the powers not forbidden to the states, or granted to the Feds, are left to the States, or the people. Insofar as the 2nd amendment permits gun regulation (the exact contours have not yet been established by the courts), that power is still in the hands of the states. State regulations on public carry are not a new idea: https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/firearm-regionalism-and-public-carry https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/firearm-regionalism-and...
- robomartin 7y ago
  Yeah, I don't know. This starts getting into the deep technical details of law, history, precedent, etc. I have a feeling that, once you reach these depths, only people with the requisite legal training and knowledge can voice opinion with any degree of authority. I suspect these are matters still waiting for the "Mother of all Supreme Court Cases". I wish we would take a solid year of time and have the SCOTUS, once and for all, look at this intricate puzzle and lend clarity to a very messy set of situations. Any outcome would be better than the legal limbo in which exist on this matter. I would much prefer a society without guns BTW. That said, I am not diluted enough to think this is even remotely in the real of the plausible. That's why I prefer to push back against wasting energy trying to go for bans, confiscations and buy-backs that will never happen. We need to go after the criminal or disturbed minds that seek to cause harm, regardless of the means through which they might accomplish this --from box cutters, through pressure cookers and, yes, guns. I firmly believe this is an attainable goal. Far more attainable than clashing with the second amendment. This goal isn't without issues. For example, there are privacy laws that, quite literally, prevent a doctor from reporting someone who they believe might cause harm to others. Nothing is simple. Some things are simpler than others. That does not mean they are easy.