4 ms·

And this is why we need federal shall-issue CCW permits and common weapon lows. This hot mess of nonsense across the states needs to stop.

by vl 6y ago

kube-system 6y ago
That mess of laws is an inherent part of our strong foundation in federalism.
- pps43 6y ago
  Yet somehow the 1st or 5th Amendment are applied across all states uniformly, unlike the 2nd.
  - adrr 6y ago
    How Grand Juries work is up to the states. They vary a lot. Even how regular juries work is up to the states eg: Oregon doesn't require unanimous verdict. I am sure you can dig into 1st amendment and find differences across the states. I am sure states have laws on how and where you can petition.
    - wnoise 6y ago
      Oregon and Lousiana didn't. They do now, thanks to a recent SCOTUS case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodaca_v._Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodaca_v._Oregon
  - kube-system 6y ago
    States still have their own laws regarding legal procedure and speech rights, and they do vary by state. Those overarching rights are still a patchwork between states. Many states give protections that go beyond the requirements in the US Constitution -- this is completely legal and not uncommon. The Bill of Rights mainly defines which laws are illegal -- it does not prescribe what is legal. This is currently what is the case with shall-issue vs may-issue, at least until SCOTUS clarifies otherwise.
    - pageandrew 6y ago
      > the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Seems like denying some people the right to bear arms would pretty plainly constitute an infringement, no?
      - kube-system 6y ago
        SCOTUS has not ruled on this issue, so it is technically undetermined. SCOTUS has ruled in other cases that there are some situations where people can be denied those rights legally, so determining the outcome is not as simple as reading the text. SCOTUS generally evaluates the law in a broader context than just the written text.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - rkt88edmo 6y ago
    To incorporate, or not incorporate - that is the question.
- bacondude3 6y ago
  State laws that contradict federal legislation is not a foundation of Federalism, though.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    1. It sort of is. The prevailing founding arguments for federalism was as a check against the national government. Even today, 35 states contradict the federal government's regulation that states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use" 2. Only SCOTUS can definitively say whether or not may-issue contradicts the 2nd.
- rmk 6y ago
  Right, but the Federal Government has stepped in when it was taken too far. That's why Ruby Bridges was escorted to school 60 years ago.
- samatman 6y ago
  Quite so, along with this clause of the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I'm not alone in thinking that California's oppressive may-issue CCW laws deny citizens the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and would welcome Federal intervention in this specific instance.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
But shall-issue permits are only common in the first place because states were allowed to independently try it out. Up until the mid-90s, almost all states were either may-issue or no-issue.
- mlindner 6y ago
  Do you have a source for that? Gun laws have only gotten more strict in recent years, not less strict.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    Wikipedia has a good summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_the_U.S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_.... (there's supposed to be a period at the end of the link). Of course, concealed carry restrictions aren't the only gun laws in the country, but I have to admit I'm just not very informed on any others. I do know California's handgun registry has gotten stricter.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - LyndsySimon 6y ago
    > Gun laws have only gotten more strict in recent years, not less strict This is definitely not true at the state level, and not exactly true at the federal level either. Every state to which I regularly travel is now "constitutional carry" - i.e., no permit needed at all. None of them were ten years ago.

And this is why we need federal shall-issue CCW permits and common weapon lows. This hot mess of nonsense across the states needs to stop.

by vl 6y ago

And this is why we need federal shall-issue CCW permits and common weapon lows. This hot mess of nonsense across the states needs to stop.

kube-system 6y ago

That mess of laws is an inherent part of our strong foundation in federalism.

pps43 6y ago
Yet somehow the 1st or 5th Amendment are applied across all states uniformly, unlike the 2nd.
- adrr 6y ago
  How Grand Juries work is up to the states. They vary a lot. Even how regular juries work is up to the states eg: Oregon doesn't require unanimous verdict. I am sure you can dig into 1st amendment and find differences across the states. I am sure states have laws on how and where you can petition.
  - wnoise 6y ago
    Oregon and Lousiana didn't. They do now, thanks to a recent SCOTUS case. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodaca_v._Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apodaca_v._Oregon
- kube-system 6y ago
  States still have their own laws regarding legal procedure and speech rights, and they do vary by state. Those overarching rights are still a patchwork between states. Many states give protections that go beyond the requirements in the US Constitution -- this is completely legal and not uncommon. The Bill of Rights mainly defines which laws are illegal -- it does not prescribe what is legal. This is currently what is the case with shall-issue vs may-issue, at least until SCOTUS clarifies otherwise.
  - pageandrew 6y ago
    > the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed Seems like denying some people the right to bear arms would pretty plainly constitute an infringement, no?
    - kube-system 6y ago
      SCOTUS has not ruled on this issue, so it is technically undetermined. SCOTUS has ruled in other cases that there are some situations where people can be denied those rights legally, so determining the outcome is not as simple as reading the text. SCOTUS generally evaluates the law in a broader context than just the written text.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- rkt88edmo 6y ago
  To incorporate, or not incorporate - that is the question.
bacondude3 6y ago
State laws that contradict federal legislation is not a foundation of Federalism, though.
- kube-system 6y ago
  1. It sort of is. The prevailing founding arguments for federalism was as a check against the national government. Even today, 35 states contradict the federal government's regulation that states marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use" 2. Only SCOTUS can definitively say whether or not may-issue contradicts the 2nd.
rmk 6y ago
Right, but the Federal Government has stepped in when it was taken too far. That's why Ruby Bridges was escorted to school 60 years ago.
samatman 6y ago
Quite so, along with this clause of the 14th Amendment: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." I'm not alone in thinking that California's oppressive may-issue CCW laws deny citizens the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, and would welcome Federal intervention in this specific instance.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

But shall-issue permits are only common in the first place because states were allowed to independently try it out. Up until the mid-90s, almost all states were either may-issue or no-issue.

mlindner 6y ago
Do you have a source for that? Gun laws have only gotten more strict in recent years, not less strict.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Wikipedia has a good summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_the_U.S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_concealed_carry_in_.... (there's supposed to be a period at the end of the link). Of course, concealed carry restrictions aren't the only gun laws in the country, but I have to admit I'm just not very informed on any others. I do know California's handgun registry has gotten stricter.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- LyndsySimon 6y ago
  > Gun laws have only gotten more strict in recent years, not less strict This is definitely not true at the state level, and not exactly true at the federal level either. Every state to which I regularly travel is now "constitutional carry" - i.e., no permit needed at all. None of them were ten years ago.