Or at least 150. There was a big debate – with bullets – about that.
Eh, some of the states tried to become independent, but failed.
Despite the rhetoric that some traitors used to try and justify their treason, the US was De Facto one country rather than a collection of independent states long before the Civil War.
My point is that you can’t claim you support state rights in a situation where state rights are used to defend gun ownership if you don’t support state rights in a situation where state rights are used to oppose gun ownership. If that’s your position then you’re not in favor of states rights; you’re in favor of gun ownership.
That’s fair. Though I don’t think that has anything to do with the 10th Amendment specifically, that is a very true general statement. If you support Texas allowing anyone over 21 to carry a holstered gun either openly or concealed without a permit, you should also support Massachusetts requiring a license to own or carry or even transport any gun, ammo, or ammo feeding device, if the issue you care about is states’ rights.
Yes. Just like there is wiggle room in the right to free speech. (No kiddie porn, no copyright stealing, etc etc)
And three cities (I am calling Wash DC a city for this) did try to ban guns, which led to Heller.
I have no major issues with it, but I agree- cant be passed.
No, they did not.
At least 2 cities in Wisconsin attempted to: Milwaukee and Madison. It was one of the precursors to the states firearms preemption law.
“Independent” is NOT the same thing as “having a significant amount of power.” Nobody is saying that the states are independent. However, they DO have a large amount of sovereignty. That is why they are able to pass laws that the federal government objects to, among other things, and also why the governors are the commanders-in-chief of the National Guard when it is not federalized.
Chicago lawmakers outlawed the sale and possession of handguns in 1982, and the ban remained in place for nearly three decades before it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010. The Court ruled that the ban violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
San Francisco Proposition H (2005) - Wikipedia.
Proposition H was a local ordinance on the November 8, 2005 ballot in San Francisco, California, which gained national attention for its banning of most firearms within the city. The measure passed with a yes vote of 123,033 to a no vote of 89,856. The proposition was later struck down in court.
What do you think Heller was about then?
Heller was about a court inventing a right that had never been recognized by any court prior out of whole cloth, as cited above. It’s the reason that the 2nd Amendment became an embarrassment in 2008.
Sounds like it was about overturning the will of the people as expressed through the ballot box.
National Polls show that the people do not want guns bans, but they do want more gun control.
And Heller overturned just the Wash DC ban, ehich was not passed by the people.
And if we let individual towns go against the constitution, you know some Red state town is gonna ban Gay marriage… and more. Do you want that?
I’m not talking about national polls, I’m talking about the San Francisco election that you just posted about.
Which is why gun ownership shouldn’t be in the constitution.
Which was thrown out by the CA State Supreme Ct as Stae law clearly prohibits municipalities etc from making their own gun laws. Gun laws have to be state wide in CA.
Then why did you bring it up in a thread about constitutional gun rights and the Heller decision?
I think the Heller decision overturned a Washington DC law which placed a lot of restrictions on guns, including banning many broad categories of guns.
But the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (which was the law the court overturned) did not ban all guns.
I suspect it was to refute this claim.
It was showing that yes, a few cities tried to ban guns.
Though I’m not sure how direct the line is between all of those attempts and Heller.
There’s a difference between a city banning automatic rifles and a city banning guns.
BTW, the issue directly at hand in Heller was not automatics or “asault weapons”, it was handguns, and that DC’s level of control over those was, for virtually all of its residents, a constructive ban (which I am sure the large number of federal officials who live and work in DC did not mind at all). Scalia himself stated in the written opinion that even with this ruling DC can still require licensing and registration and limit where you may carry what.
However the twist (and what gets people on both sides rather excited) was that to get there, the explicit interpretation was put down on paper that there is an individual right to arms for private self defense under the federal constitution.
Of course 15 years later the RW ignores Scalia and insist that the right should mean total nonrestriction.