Handguns
Subscribe
Digital Now Included!
Current Subscribers Click Here.
Current Subscribers Click Here.
All Florida Sportsman subscribers now have digital access to their magazine content. This means you have the option to read your magazine on most popular phones and tablets.
To get started, click the link below to visit mymagnow.com and learn how to access your digital magazine.
Replies
No context, straight for the kids. Classic liberal tactic.
330 million people in the United states.
More kids were separated by their parents at the border in 1 week by trump thank killed by firearms in a year.
At least then we will know you have the safest home in Hogtown.
"Soul of the mind, key to life's ether. Soul of the lost, withdrawn from its vessel. Let strength be granted, so the world might be mended. So the world might be mended."
1. The Second Amendment only applied to the Federal government, not the States, for most of the nation's history. The Founders intended that all of the Bill of Rights applied to the Feds only, and that's how it was construed for over a century. They trusted that citizens could more easily control State governments so restrictions on State action wasn't as necessary as restrictions on Federal action.
2. As such, the Feds viewed the Second Amendment as absolute as it related to acts of Congress. That's why there was zero Federal gun legislation until the early 1900s. We know from legal and historical writings that they ("they" being judges and lawmakers) very much considered the "shall not be infringed" portion of the Second Amendment to be absolute.
3. As the Second Amendment didn't apply to the States, States were free to legislate guns, subject to their own constitutions and statutes.
4. Most States had their own Right to Bear Arms written into their State constitutions so most States didn't do much to infringe on guns rights.
5. Many States and municipalities had restrictions on open or concealed carry thruout the 1800s. These were not seen as infringements on the Second Amendment because the Second Amendment didn't apply to State or local acts. Nor were those restrictions often taken as infringements on State constitutions.
6. The Civil War happened. People spilled blood over differing views as to how the States and the Federal government should relate to each other. After the War, the Constitution was severely amended to make it clear that the Federal government was dominate over the States in many areas.
7. The 14th Amendment, one of the post-War Amendments, subjected the States to a prohibition from taking the life or property of someone without Due Process. Due Process wasn't defined in the Amendment. The 14th Amendment was crafted in direct response to how the southern States had treated blacks and addressed concerns that black people would continue to be mistreated thru State action even though the South had lost.
8. In the 1900s the Courts started thinking about what Due Process actually means under the 14th Amendment. They decided it meant the same as Due Process in the Federal 5th Amendment. That would mean that possibly some or all of the Bill of Rights was meant to be applied to the States.
9. The Courts have been applying most of the Bill of Rights against the States since that time. The Second Amendment was the last Right to be incorporated against the States in the 2000s.
10. What we have today is a blend of legal/historical traditions that don't necessarily gel. Prior the 14th Amendment, States had a tradition of lightly regulating manor of carry, while the Feds had no tradition because "shall not be infringed" was absolute. The two traditions then were parallel but separate. Now, when trying to figure out what is "historical" for Constitutional purposes, we have to recognize that applying Federal standards against the States changes what the status quo has historically been. Light prohibitions on carry are status quo for the States and prohibited for the Feds. Which should apply now? What was historical for the States or historical for the Feds?
Its all academic. I can promise you now that even a pro-gun Court will allow some infringement. I'm not saying they ought. But they will. They've stated in dicta several times that recognizing a national Right to Bear Arms as applied universally doesn't mean that firearms can't be regulated. They may uphold the overturning the HI law because it was effectively acting as a gun ban. They may say that HI needs to pick a way to let their citizens carry, by either choosing open carry or conceal carry. But I could foresee the same court upholding other carry restrictions such as in permissive States like Florida that just basically checks to make sure you aren't a criminal or mental ill before issuing a permit.
How is it we allowed our lawmakers to take a right guaranteed by our constitution.....and sell it back to us?
and most will consider the CCP a badge of honor, as if paying for a constitutional right is something to brag about....something to be proud of.
I AM NOT A RACIST
Thats a rediculous premise.....you lose your job and you lose your civil rights.
Maybe you should give that some more thought?
I AM NOT A RACIST
I think L. E. kinda teaches this.
There are stupid people everywhere. It's always been that way and probably always will.
I AM NOT A RACIST
I'm taking notes. You're highly educational
Blacks:
Suppressed because of their skin color
Uneducated
Incapable of self sufficiency
Poor wage earners
Always shot by police
Will never succeed because whites have everything
IF they accidentally become successful it's because someone let them be
Can't get in to college because of a highly partial administrations office
Aren't allowed to carry a firearm
:Griz
When Joe Blow with the Colt Hog leg on his side get's Popped all attention is on him.
I've got plenty of time to take cover and return fire to a distracted Felon...winning..
The tenth amendment left it up the states.
The 10th amendment left it up to the States.
Former Mini Mart Magnate
I am just here for my amusement.