Is it okay to ban handguns now?

I've heard people on the right defend Alabama's decision to violate a Supreme Court ruling by banning abortion. So how about states such as California violate Heller by banning handguns? Fair is fair.

 

We don't want to take away your abortions, we just want common sense abortion control.

 

Apples and oranges.

 

Which states in the united states have actually enacted a complete and total prohibition on all abortions? Demonstrate such.

 

I think it is appropriate for states to pass 'test' legislation designed specifically to better define the parameters of previous decisions or to define legal doctrine on which precedent is based. The problem with these recent state abortion statutes is that there is too many of them and that they all appear so incredibly broad that each one demands that Roe be completely overturned and stare decisis be abandoned. It feels as though half the red states have virtually banned abortion simultaneously when only one state law needs to supply SCOTUS with the opportunity to overturn Roe.

 

Where is abortion mentioned in the U.S. Constitution?

 

Despite being a gun rights advocate, I am opposed to the Executive Branch subverting the Constitution by using Executive Orders to usurp legislative power regardless of who is in office. Issues related to guns are already Constitutionally proscribed; what is needed is either judicial review or modifying relevant Constitutional provisions by the Constitutionally proscribed means. Anything other than following the Constitution as a basis for Governing and Law is a prescription for destruction of the Republic and potentially for Civil War.

 

Abortion is a judicial privilege, it can removed by a single decision. Gun ownership is a right, as enumerated within the Constitution in the 2nd Amendment. Not really difficult to see and understand the difference...

 

They are not attempting to violate the SCOTUS decision. They are attempting to get SCOTUS to revisit it.

I wholeheartedly support Alabama, and wish they'd go even further yet by not giving a **** about what SCOTUS says. SCOTUS (well, the federal government as a whole) has no constitutional power to legislate on abortion to begin with. Alabama has every right as a sovereign state (and as part OWNER of the damn federal constitution) to nullify unconstitutional federal laws such as this abortion law. Abortion is not a right. It infringes upon a person's inherent right to life.

Banning handguns is a violation of the US Constitution. It infringes upon a person's inherent right to defend themselves using any means necessary (ultimately, their right to life).

 

Precisely this.

Where in Article 1 Section 8 is Congress given the authority to legislate abortion?

 

In general, I agree with this. Issues not mentioned in the US Constitution, per the US Constitution, should be left up to the individual states to decide, as they were the ones who created the US Constitution.

However, when it comes to guns, the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear, and the inherent right to self-defense using any means necessary (ultimately, the right to life) is something that even States shouldn't infringe upon.

 

SCOTUS’s decision was framed by the 14th Amendment in the Roe vs Wade decision. If you follow those introducing Alabama’s bill, the stated intention was to force the issue to be revisited by SCOTUS in hopes that the new conservative picks will be the votes to reverse the decision. But, for those following a couple of recent SCOTUS cases, the current court makeup is no guarantee of an outcome.

In the regard to the mention of ‘Nullification’, it has never been allowed by the courts in the few attempts at invoking it.

 

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with abortion nor legislating it.

Correct.

So? The courts are not an Oligarchy. They don't have any power to interpret the Constitution. The States are who created the Constitution, not the courts.

 

We both agree that controversial social issues, in a general sense (and as the Constitution allows), should be handled by individual states instead of the federal government.

I disagree here. I've found the US Constitution to be quite straight forward.

They would still have a purpose, as outlined in Article III of the Constitution.

This is incorrect. SCOTUS has the power to interpret laws arising UNDER the US Constitution, but NOT to interpret the US Constitution itself. This is expressed quite clearly in Article III.

This is not the duty of SCOTUS. They have no power over the Constitution, only under it. See Article III. I can figure out what it is saying simply by reading it. It is written in English.

Correct. This is a power of SCOTUS, as outlined in Article III. Judicial review extends to cases arising under the Constitution (such as laws passed by Congress or by States). It does NOT extend to having control over the Constitution itself. SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy.

Okay.

And here you are arguing irrationally. You just got done telling me that the Constitution is NOT cut/dry/clear, but now you're saying that it was indeed so at the time it was written, even though the words of it (less some amendments added to it after that time period) are exactly the same. Which is it?

You also said that if it WERE cut/dry/clear, we would not need 9 judges to figure it out. We've always had at least 6 judges, and even up to 10 at one point in time before we settled at 9, so apparently it has never been cut/dry/clear according to your reasoning here, so you are contradicting yourself there too when you say that it WAS cut/dry/clear at the time it was written.

Those above-mentioned paradoxes need to be cleared before rational discussion concerning those two points can resume.

It applies the same now as it did then. The "society surrounding it" is irrelevant.

It is still easy to apply to the nation. It applies now the same as it did then. If it needs to be changed, that's what the amendment process is for.

If it needs to be "updated to the current times", then there is an amendment process to make those changes. Otherwise, the text still applies just as much now as it did then.

Yes, it is. Applying it literally is the ONLY way to apply it, otherwise one is not applying it at all. Why even HAVE a Constitution if you aren't going to follow what it says?

It makes just as much sense now as it did back then. If changes need to be made, then there is an amendment process.

Just read it. It's in English.

Irrelevant to how it is actually phrased. It can only be changed through the amendment process specified within it.

No, we don't.

Plenty of them would. I am one of them. The 2nd Amendment does not limit what arms one can keep/bear, and does not allow infringement upon that right. The 2nd Amendment applies to the federal government AND state/local governments. One has the inherent right to defend oneself using any means necessary, including an "M32 semi auto handheld grenade launcher".

Correct, that is what it says.

It is an arm, regardless of semantic games.

What the NRA says is irrelevant to what the US Constitution says.

Debate would occur regardless of how clear or murky the Amendment is.

It IS quite clear, actually. It expresses two rights. One concerning State militias and the other concerning people keeping/bearing arms.

The 2nd Amendment gets in their way, though. That Amendment does apply to State governments as well. Same with the 3rd-9th Amendments... The 1st Amendment applies to the federal government only, and the 10th Amendment further clarifies powers of federal and state governments.

Generally, I agree with this, but the 2nd Amendment applies to state governments as well.

Agreed, except for guns. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear regarding guns. As for the other things, the 10th Amendment is quite clear that States have the power to legislate on those things, since the federal government was not enumerated with the power to legislate on such things. --- This is what Alabama is getting at with their current abortion law. They are attempting to get SCOTUS to come to their senses regarding what the Constitution actually says. They are unwilling to go as far as nullification, at least at this point, but I would even support their efforts of nullification if they were to so choose that path.

Absolutely correct!!!

 

Since those bans violate roe you want to double down and violate heller and mcdonald....

I'm not sure you understand how the court system works.

 

Life and self defense are fundamental human rights - abortion is not.

 

“Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

No? What has been the role of SCOTUS in among the branches of Government since the formulation of the Government guided by the framework of the Constitution? Given the Supremacy Clause, States aren’t free to invoke nullification and pass laws contrary to the provisions of the Constitution or Federal
Law. Several states tried the nullification path prior to the Civil War with slavery laws and in the 50’s with schooling provisions and non of the nullification attempts were allowed by SCOTUS decisions.
And, yes, the SCOTUS cannot add or amend provisions in the Constitution, there is a prescribed process for that. It is the role of SCOTUS to resolve disputes over the interpretation of the Constitution and whether Federal Law is Consistent with the Constitution.
The current effort in Alabama and Missouri are not nullification attempts, but, according to the authors, a strategy to get SCOTUS to revisit the abortion question in hopes the current court composition will reverse their decision.

Just as an aside, regardless of which side of the debate people are on, when thinking about the ‘heartbeat’ law supporters, when is a fetus considered ‘live’. Some, as the Catholic Church might, say at the moment of conception. But, I not generally, a patient can be sustained by machine with a non functioning heart... often brain activity being the criteria for determining death.
Then too, some states, and abortion supporters, support laws that define the killing of a fetus as murder (I.e. kill a pregnant woman and a double murder charge can result. Injure a pregnant woman and the feats dies and a murder charge can result). So, what is the definition, the point where there is agreement human life exists? I have my thoughts, but curious.

 

Re-read Roe v Wade. Its a life at conception, its just that until viability it does not eclipse the rights of the mother.

 

I am familiar with Roe vs Wade, it’s definition of life, and the rights of the mother. In both law and debate there still exists a debate over the definition of life in the womb. And in the instances I mentioned, a legal paradox in law. Aborting a fetus under Roe vs Wade isn’t considered killing, ending a life justifying a murder charge, but is in many states in done in a violent crime perpetuated against a pregnant woman. A woman killing a child immediately after birth will be charged with a crime in any state as would she killing any of her children...meaning at the point of birth, a child’s right to life is state protected, but depending on the context, may or may not be if birth hasn’t occurred.
So, as some argue, a mother/doctor should be able to terminate a life (kill) immediately after birth, while a criminal shooting and killing a child in the womb can be charged with murder. How is that different than a mother killing her child at any point in life? There exist in law and logic being applied, a contradiction and, yet, a lack of consensus. At what point does a child/fetus receive the protection of Constitutional rights even after the Roe vs Wade decision? There is inherent here several questions of which the answers have yet universal agreement which result in legal ambiguity.

 

Wikipedia article dismissed on sight. I do not accept Wikipedia as a source, since it is often incomplete, incorrect, and can be edited by virtually anyone.

See Article III of the US Constitution for the role of SCOTUS. That role does NOT include interpreting the US Constitution. SCOTUS is not above the US Constitution; they are under it.

The Supremacy Clause does not stop States from invoking nullification. Read it again... Article 6, Paragraph 2...

This is correct. States have to abide by the US Constitution.

...so long as that federal law is made in pursuance of the US Constitution. If it is not, then States have the right to nullify it. See Article 6, Paragraph 2 of the US Constitution.

And those states had every right to do so, especially in the case of slavery laws, as those laws were a direct violation of the 5th Amendment. The Confederacy was correct about that bit.

SCOTUS doesn't get to decide whether or not a State can nullify unconstitutional federal law. SCOTUS is not an Oligarchy; they are not above the US Constitution. See Article III of the US Constitution.

Correct, but you don't seem to like that very much.

WRONG. SCOTUS has no power to interpret the Constitution. See Article III of the Constitution.

THIS is correct. SCOTUS does have the power to interpret federal law (all cases arising under the US Constitution). Article III is quite clear about this.

Correct. I originally noted this, and have re-noted it multiple times now.

Correct. I originally noted this, and have re-noted it multiple times now.

Life begins at the moment of conception. At that moment, all the DNA of the new life is joined together and beginning the process of becoming the child that one sees born approximately nine months later.

They are correct. Life begins at conception.

Methods which life can be sustained are irrelevant to when life begins.

Correct. This is a paradox that the abortion supporter needs to resolve in order to argue rationally. Is that fetus inside of her a life or not? Her "want" or "non-want" is irrelevant.

Life begins at the moment of conception. It is that point that all DNA is joined together and the development of human life begins.

 

Correct!

Terminating the life of a child inside the womb, at this point, seems to be simultaneously acceptable AND not acceptable. This paradox needs to be cleared in order to argue rationally... Either that child is "life" or "not-life"; it can't simultaneously be both...

 

This is especially the case with regard to the unborn victims of violence act, where the fetus can be classified as a victim of a violent crime if the mother is murdered. Yet the same does not apply with regard to abortion. If a fetus is truly not alive prior to delivery, there is no rational basis for declaring it to be a victim of a violent crime, anymore than damaged property can be declared a victim of a violent crime. Yet if the fetus is considered alive enough to be regarded as a victim of a violent crime, abortion truly is an act of murder.

It can only be one or the other, it cannot be both.