Court Declares Laws Banning Handgun Sales To People Under 21 Unconstitutional

The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient.

Correct, but in this instance we have the opposite case: the Federally recognized right is more open (or same as) than any of the State's methods of recognizing said right. The Constitution states that the people have the broadest version of the right. So how can a State Constitution then take that away?

See also the 10th amendment. This is a jurisdictional issue. Every state, thankfully, has its own Bill of Rights.

How does the 10th apply in this case? The 2nd clearly states "shall not be infringed". Anything less than no infringement whatsoever IS an infringement. There is no power to infringe left to the States, it is clearly NOT a power they retain.

Theoretically, some people could argue the lack of incorporation prior to the 14th. (Which wouldn't apply anymore, now that the 14th is here.) However, the 2nd was never limited to FedGov (Congress shall not), from the very beginning it placed the right to arms in the hands of the people, not a benefit the Feds or State could grant or take at their pleasure. The 2nd places the right ONLY within the people.

Also, your argument here basically eliminates the 2nd, and places the right ONLY as a privilege granted by States. Like you ended your reply with, that would mean that States like Iowa with no version of the 2nd would therefore have no explicit right to arms whatsoever?

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

This would, reasonably, allow for passing laws to (legally) disallow pre-teens from owning or purchasing firearms.

While this doesn't exactly apply to the above discussion, how does that coincide? Are pre-teens not part of "every citizen"? How does disallowing a large block of persons from owning or buying firearms a part of regulating the wearing thereof? Owning or purchasing are not wearing. And even if you could argue that they were, blanket banning isn't related to specifically preventing crime either.

The states are generally more conservative than Washington D.C., so I will always side with the states having this kind of power over granting it to the Federal government.

I fully agree, but in this case we aren't discussing some gray area that FedGov is trying to nose into despite having no explicit power to do so. This isn't a power granted to FedGov, and it's not granted to the States either. It is explicitly not granted to either entity, and no allowance is made for either entity to take any powers related to that right. A general statement (10th) does not override a specific one (2nd). In fact, the very wording further reinforces my point: The powers not given to FedGov, nor prohibited to the States ... are reserved to the people.

"While this doesn't exactly apply to the above discussion, how does that coincide? Are pre-teens not part of "every citizen"?

It depends on which jurisdiction you're talking about. The Texas Constitution doesn't say "shall not be infringed", many of them don't. Let's take a step back and re-focus on the opening post:

"Court Declares Laws Banning Handgun Sales To People Under 21 Unconstitutional"

This headline is actually misleading. It should state "Court Declares Federal Laws Banning Handgun Sales To People Under 21 Unconstitutional". That's what the article states. "A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that federal laws........"

America isn't an anarchist utopia. There are going to be infringements somewhere. If 21 is an infringement just as much as 18 is, then 16 and 12 and 8 years old and 6 months old is equally just as infringing, if we want to boil it down to a purely philosophical constitutional question and take actual humans out of it. But states have a responsibility to look out for children, felons, the clinically insane, etc. These people that are going into Facebook saying publicly that they are planning on going to bomb schools, kill their parents, and then go skin a cat and all of this other crazy stuff, that is reasonable to protect others before they go out and lay waste to the local Starbucks and everybody in it. To prevent a federal tyranny nobody can escape, the logical place is to push infringements down as low as possible. State is better than federal, regional is better than state, municipal is better than regional. Etc etc.

If we had a more moral society, government wouldn't even need to be involved because families would be doing the infringing on behalf of the government as it used to be. I know it's a tired old cliche, but families need to be stronger and this is an important reason why. Keeping the crazies in the attic before they go out and hurt anybody. With our current state of very weak families, that is pushing everything upward toward bigger and bigger authoritarian government.

".....but in this instance we have the opposite case: the Federally recognized right....."

There isn't some magical connotation to this. In this instance we have a state-recognized right. Why is that so easily dismissed? Why is everybody constantly throwing dung on the states? What did they do to you? And for the sake of discussion what about the reverse? What if we had a globally recognized right? Would a globally recognized right be super-double-magical compared to a singularly-magical Federally recognized right? I'm just not quite sure why there seems to be shade being thrown toward the states and I do see it all the time.

"How does the 10th apply in this case? "

The 10th amendment always applies if federal jurisdictional issues are at play, unless something is specifically delegated to the feds as theirs to own. Shall not be infringed is the strongest possible term which you could actually read as "we didn't and never will delegate this to you". "You cannot be trusted".

But then we don't have the feds involved. So who's involved? This case Hirschfield v. The ATF says its based in Virginia. Virginia has a gun restriction preventing anybody below 18 from purchasing weapons, the same age/number as Texas. That's what the fallback is here, the federal law of 21 years gets out of the way and 18 years becomes the standard. That's what it should be. Maybe there need to be some cases to challenge the state constitutionality of a 17 year old who wants to buy weapons contravening state laws that draw the line in the sand at the age of 18. Virginians can do that, maybe they should.

"Theoretically, some people could argue the lack of incorporation prior to the 14th. "

What about lack of incorporation after the 14th? Incorporation didn't come from the 14th, that's a hoax. Incorporation is the result of judicial malpractice. Just because some judge says "I got this from the 14th", why should we believe them? Judges haven't exactly proven themselves to be trustworthy here and neither have the professors who teach us that this is how it is.

"Also, your argument here basically eliminates the 2nd"

It doesn't in any way shape or form. What I'm talking about is what existed right as the country was started as Roger Sherman stated. States have bills of rights for state jurisdictional issues, the federal government has its bill of rights for federal jurisdictional issues. To my knowledge, many municipalities and county charters have a certain form of bills of rights in them as well. A city may very well infringe on some sort of right you possess, you ought to know what they cannot do in that arena. County charters lay out county jurisdictional issues. Etc etc.

"but in this case we aren't discussing some gray area that FedGov is trying to nose into"

Any law pertaining to weapons - the way the federal second amendment is written - all of them are camel's nose under the tent operations. Progressives have been working their operation this way for over a century. They want big government running everything so the do what they can to find what may be a weak point and abuse the heck out of it.

"This isn't a power granted to FedGov, and it's not granted to the States either."

At least in the case of Texas, it is granted to them. Article 1 section 23 is pretty clear. Or at least, it has enough clarity to demonstrate that the legislature has room to work on the matter and has authority. Otherwise you are left with a situation where someone reports "the crazy lunatic next door is saying he is going to shoot up the elementary school tomorrow." Who deals with that? (Let's just keep with Texas here)

I'll say it any day of the week. I want Texas doing it. I don't want the feds involved. Tell the feds to go away. We got this. We don't need the feds coming in and making things worse.

I only got part way through the "decision" before I had to stop!

I have problems with the following!

We then ask, as our precedent requires, whether the government has met its burden to justify its infringement of those rights under the appropriate level of scrutiny.

(Under the 2ND, There can be no justification to deny the 'right' to own a gun!)

... a federal law prevented her from buying from a licensed dealer who would perform a background check to verify that she was not a felon or other prohibited person.

(If a person is legally walking around as a free man, that is all one needs to know!
If that person has escaped from prison .. it is not up to the rest of us to prove that we aren't criminals!
Who could possibly be "another prohibited person?)

Later that year, Congress amended the law to prohibit licensed dealers from selling any firearm to those under 18 ..

(As has been ruled by the SCOTUS themselves:
In Marbury v. Madison (1803) the Supreme Court announced for the first time the principle that a court may declare an act of Congress void if it is inconsistent with the Constitution.)

"All laws that are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.
Marbury v. Madison

.......................................
I would also point out that ... All so called gun laws are unconstitutional!

The Constitution is a throttler on Government powers .. Not a yoke on "We The People"

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.