If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Atlantic)   People who hate the federal government preempting state laws have no problem with state governments preempting local laws when it comes to guns   (theatlantic.com) divider line 267
    More: Obvious, state governments, federal government, state law, Missouri General Assembly, Sedgwick County, residential community, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Ohio Governor  
•       •       •

1472 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Mar 2014 at 11:33 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



267 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-06 11:10:17 AM  
More like "people like laws they like, and dislike laws they dislike, and attempt to rationalize any incongruity between the two."
 
2014-03-06 11:11:14 AM  
It's an entirely different kind of preempting, altogether.
 
2014-03-06 11:21:20 AM  

Pocket Ninja: It's an entirely different kind of preempting, altogether.


It's an entirely different kind of preempting.
 
2014-03-06 11:36:05 AM  
It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.
 
2014-03-06 11:41:26 AM  

max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.


Unless it is weed.
 
2014-03-06 11:41:49 AM  
soldiersystems.net
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-06 11:42:00 AM  
You're asking today's nutball right wing to be consistent in their beliefs.

This does not happen.  Logic no go there.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-03-06 11:42:54 AM  

max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.


...which is how we got the Constitution in the first place.

Another thing they don't do is read history.
 
2014-03-06 11:43:30 AM  
About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.
 
2014-03-06 11:44:38 AM  
Pick your poison.

I know people that have no problem attempting to preempt federal and state laws when it comes to environmental protections.
 
2014-03-06 11:51:38 AM  
Most people who hate any form government have no issue with their own form of government.

Fixed that for you, subby
 
2014-03-06 11:52:20 AM  

max_pooper: It's almost as if federal laws trump state laws, and state laws trump municipal laws.


Funny about that.

About the only way this doesn't happen is if the State Constitution explicitly allows it, or State law carves out municipal independence in a limited area.
 
2014-03-06 11:52:59 AM  

monoski: Most people who hate any form government have no issue with their own form of government.

Fixed that for you, subby


Not very well, though. Would you like to buy an "of"?
 
2014-03-06 11:53:30 AM  

meat0918: I know people that have no problem attempting to preempt federal and state laws when it comes to environmental protections.


For example...
 
2014-03-06 11:54:23 AM  

Bareefer Obonghit: About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.


Well given that he was apparently guilty of brandishing/aggravated assault, no need to worry about exemption there. Now if you want to talk whether or not he should have been allowed to have a gun in city hall, well chances are he was either exempted from the rule altogether or he had it there illegally. Most states do not allow people to carry guns in places like town halls (public meetings being different than secure areas) but often police and elected representatives are exceptions to that rule.
 
2014-03-06 11:55:12 AM  

d23: You're asking today's nutball right wing to be consistent in their beliefs.

This does not happen.  Logic no go there.


To be fair, most people don't.  High right-wing-authoritarians tend to crop up a bit in the democratic party sometimes too, and they do the exact same thing.
 
2014-03-06 11:59:55 AM  

manbart: [soldiersystems.net image 500x370]


Ok, the look in her eyes is pure Trolltastic.
 
2014-03-06 12:01:31 PM  

redmid17: Bareefer Obonghit: About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.

Well given that he was apparently guilty of brandishing/aggravated assault, no need to worry about exemption there. Now if you want to talk whether or not he should have been allowed to have a gun in city hall, well chances are he was either exempted from the rule altogether or he had it there illegally. Most states do not allow people to carry guns in places like town halls (public meetings being different than secure areas) but often police and elected representatives are exceptions to that rule.


Afterwards the town tried to enact a 'no guns in city govt buildings unless you are a cop' rule and the NRA got involved and they dropped it. He acted surprised that they tried to make this rule and said, "I think they did this because of me." HAHAHAHAHA noooo, of course not. He had to leave office about a year later because he was 80ish and had some dementia. Shocking.
 
2014-03-06 12:02:42 PM  
Also I'd be more on Tom Dart's side if ISP had access to the same databases he was digging through. They don't. That's why they approved the applications. Also there is a huge wave of applications coming in right now because Illinois, unconstitutionally apparently, had decided that there was no right to concealed carry and now 1,000 applications a day are coming in. Once that initial wave has subsided, the 30 day window is pretty in line with other states who have similar provisions. Wisconsin's law specifies 21 days, for example.
 
2014-03-06 12:02:45 PM  

Katolu: manbart: [soldiersystems.net image 500x370]

Ok, the look in her eyes is pure Trolltastic.


Yeah, you gotta wonder about that image. It's almost too ironic and I see what you mean about her expression. It's as if she's laughing with her eyes.
 
2014-03-06 12:04:28 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: redmid17: Bareefer Obonghit: About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.

Well given that he was apparently guilty of brandishing/aggravated assault, no need to worry about exemption there. Now if you want to talk whether or not he should have been allowed to have a gun in city hall, well chances are he was either exempted from the rule altogether or he had it there illegally. Most states do not allow people to carry guns in places like town halls (public meetings being different than secure areas) but often police and elected representatives are exceptions to that rule.

Afterwards the town tried to enact a 'no guns in city govt buildings unless you are a cop' rule and the NRA got involved and they dropped it. He acted surprised that they tried to make this rule and said, "I think they did this because of me." HAHAHAHAHA noooo, of course not. He had to leave office about a year later because he was 80ish and had some dementia. Shocking.


What state is that?
 
2014-03-06 12:05:33 PM  
It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.
 
2014-03-06 12:07:15 PM  
And the same people who are complaining about states preempting cities, cry fawl when a state tries to preempt federal laws..... you just cannot explain that.
 
2014-03-06 12:07:35 PM  
And the same people who demand that states not interfere with "religious beliefs" of corporations will also gladly pass laws forcing women to have their vaginas invaded with probes in order to slut shame them.

Internal consistency isn't exactly part of the equation.
 
2014-03-06 12:07:55 PM  
This is my Rifle
This is my Gun.............



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U    (SFW)
 
2014-03-06 12:10:57 PM  

sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.


Yeah, that's the de jure understanding.  But the principle is what's in question here.

Republicans: "Smaller governments always represent people better!  Let us discriminate against gays in our states"
"Okay, let's not have so many guns in our town, we don't really want them"
"No, you'll obey our rules!"
 
2014-03-06 12:11:15 PM  
in all seriousness, the Owners (the wealthiest 2% of America that owns everyone and everything) would like to see the Sheeple lose their guns.....

that way, there would be one less thing to worry about for the Owners when they eventually control this fading Democratic Republic with an Iron Fist.


now you know!

ain't Freedom great!  (for those who have it)
 
2014-03-06 12:12:04 PM  
the IRS placed an erroneous lien on a home I no longer owned.
The lien was stamped in New Castle County, Delaware. The county executive at that time was Chris Coons, the man who wound up defeating me in the election for the U.S. Senate seat


She thinks a county executive can file a lien on behalf of the federal government?
 
2014-03-06 12:14:15 PM  

Linux_Yes: in all seriousness, the Owners (the wealthiest 2% of America that owns everyone and everything) would like to see the Sheeple lose their guns.....

that way, there would be one less thing to worry about for the Owners when they eventually control this fading Democratic Republic with an Iron Fist.


now you know!

ain't Freedom great!  (for those who have it)


pbs.twimg.com
Yes?
 
2014-03-06 12:15:27 PM  
Difference being that municipalities are creations of the states, who have sovereignty.

States are not the creation of the federal government.
 
2014-03-06 12:15:31 PM  

jaytkay: the IRS...


Wrong thread, sorry
 
2014-03-06 12:17:08 PM  
As I understand the article: Sheriff Tom Dart, of Cook County, is upset that he cannot arbitrarily deny Chicago residents concealed weapons permits due to his moral opposition to civilians being armed, and this situation should be amended to allow local sheriffs discretion in arbitrarily denying permits to people who do not provide them with sufficient campaign contributions.
 
2014-03-06 12:17:24 PM  

sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.


Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby
 
2014-03-06 12:18:06 PM  

manbart: Linux_Yes: in all seriousness, the Owners (the wealthiest 2% of America that owns everyone and everything) would like to see the Sheeple lose their guns.....

that way, there would be one less thing to worry about for the Owners when they eventually control this fading Democratic Republic with an Iron Fist.


now you know!

ain't Freedom great!  (for those who have it)

[pbs.twimg.com image 407x240]
Yes?


Scrolling down nicely and BAM that image almost made me spit my drink out.
 
2014-03-06 12:18:54 PM  
It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.
 
2014-03-06 12:19:11 PM  

Katolu: manbart: Linux_Yes: in all seriousness, the Owners (the wealthiest 2% of America that owns everyone and everything) would like to see the Sheeple lose their guns.....

that way, there would be one less thing to worry about for the Owners when they eventually control this fading Democratic Republic with an Iron Fist.


now you know!

ain't Freedom great!  (for those who have it)

[pbs.twimg.com image 407x240]
Yes?

Scrolling down nicely and BAM that image almost made me spit my drink out out my drink.


FTFM
 
2014-03-06 12:22:12 PM  

Slackfumasta: It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.


"Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.
 
2014-03-06 12:22:25 PM  

Saiga410: And the same people who are complaining about states preempting cities, cry fawl when a state tries to preempt federal laws..... you just cannot explain that.


Well, *I* can explain that, but you aren't smart enough to understand the explanation. It involves nuance and requires more brain cells than it takes you to threadshiat.

What is it that drives losers like you to spend your time trolling, anyways? It seems a fairly unhealthy hobby.
 
2014-03-06 12:24:51 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.

Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby


On the whole, local governments need to be reigned in.  Too many goody two shoes serve in local government and treat them like their little fiefdoms and attempt to regulate everything to insane levels.
 
2014-03-06 12:25:15 PM  
Uh, TFA appears to be about state laws pre-empting local laws, not really federal laws preempting state laws, though that's mentioned in passing.

Also:

"It used to be that local governments all across the country could regulate what was best for their community when it came to firearms," Cutilletta explained.

... and you used it to blatantly violate enumerated constitutional rights in a way a five-year-old could understand.  I'm sorry, brother, but people like you are pretty much the  reason that cities aren't allowed to do this anymore.  And presenting the exact same rationale ("local people should decide what's best for local conditions") that was used to justify not letting black people into most businesses, and is currently being used to try to make refusing to serve gay people legal... well, that's not helping your case, douche.

This whole situation is a whole lot of "you're the reason the rest of us can't be trusted with discretion", there.  It's not like it doesn't go the other way, rural gun laws would probably let you just lean your rifle in the corner of the bar while grabbing a beer if not for urban influence on the situation.  The law is  supposed to be generally applicable, for equal protection reasons if nothing else.  Stop whinging, you had your chance to tweak it on a smaller scale and you blew it.  Not a sinister NRA conspiracy,  you.
 
2014-03-06 12:26:30 PM  

Dimensio: Slackfumasta: It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.

"Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.


States have right because they are sovereign and do not have powers assigned to them, rather their constitutions function to limit the general rights of the States.
 
2014-03-06 12:29:49 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.

Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby

On the whole, local governments need to be reigned in.  Too many goody two shoes serve in local government and treat them like their little fiefdoms and attempt to regulate everything to insane levels.


So why doesn't that logic apply to state governments? I can easily argue that there are a lot of goody two shoes serving in my state government who do very similar things to make the state into what they think of as a utopia. Why don't they need to be reigned in by the federal government?
 
2014-03-06 12:30:39 PM  

Galloping Galoshes: monoski: Most people who hate any form government have no issue with their own form of government.

Fixed that for you, subby

Not very well, though. Would you like to buy an "of"?


Yes, sir. Please have Vanna White put that on the post for me. Thanks
 
2014-03-06 12:31:19 PM  

redmid17: Bareefer Obonghit: redmid17: Bareefer Obonghit: About 7 years ago, I remember the mayor of my town pulling his gun on an old - I'm talking like 70+ year old - secretary because she told him to stop throwing his peanut shells on the floor of City Hall every day like it was a sh*tty Lonestar Steakhouse. Because of this, I'd love to see the local gun laws my hometown would enact.

Well given that he was apparently guilty of brandishing/aggravated assault, no need to worry about exemption there. Now if you want to talk whether or not he should have been allowed to have a gun in city hall, well chances are he was either exempted from the rule altogether or he had it there illegally. Most states do not allow people to carry guns in places like town halls (public meetings being different than secure areas) but often police and elected representatives are exceptions to that rule.

Afterwards the town tried to enact a 'no guns in city govt buildings unless you are a cop' rule and the NRA got involved and they dropped it. He acted surprised that they tried to make this rule and said, "I think they did this because of me." HAHAHAHAHA noooo, of course not. He had to leave office about a year later because he was 80ish and had some dementia. Shocking.

What state is that?


It was in Pennsyltucky
 
2014-03-06 12:31:41 PM  

sprgrss: Dimensio: Slackfumasta: It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.

"Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.

States have right because they are sovereign and do not have powers assigned to them, rather their constitutions function to limit the general rights of the States.


I disagree.

A Constitution assigns (and may limit) the powers of the governing body. The Constitution of the United States of America establishes the powers of the federal government and (primarily through recognition and protection of individual rights) establishes some limitations of that power. A state constitution serves the same purpose at the state level.
 
2014-03-06 12:32:39 PM  

Dimensio: "Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.


Historically, this isn't true.  The first entities to be given legal rights were the nobility/oligarchs of the old republics and feudal states, meaning that for 1500 years or so before Locke was around they were a property of an office, not an individual (you lost your patent of nobility or your citizenship, you lost those "rights").  Currently, governing entities are still considered to have rights, though it's usually expressed in terms of jurisdiction or perogative for extra specificity.

So... no.  You're free to use a different definition of the word than the rest of the world, but we're the majority by several hundred million so we get to set the "standard" meaning, and you don't get to chew us out about it, heh.
 
2014-03-06 12:35:19 PM  
"The right to life is inherent to me as an individual and has nothing to do with society"
*Gets shot*
"Hey you can't do that!"
 
2014-03-06 12:36:20 PM  

Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.

Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby

On the whole, local governments need to be reigned in.  Too many goody two shoes serve in local government and treat them like their little fiefdoms and attempt to regulate everything to insane levels.

So why doesn't that logic apply to state governments? I can easily argue that there are a lot of goody two shoes serving in my state government who do very similar things to make the state into what they think of as a utopia. Why don't they need to be reigned in by the federal government?


Because the States are sovereign.
 
2014-03-06 12:37:56 PM  

sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: Serious Black: sprgrss: It's almost as if State governments are unitary and have general police powers and the local governments can only regulate what the state authorizes them to regulate.

Yes, I'm well aware that state governments have unitary power over their jurisdiction, but that still doesn't explain how a more local government can be better than a more distant government unless that local government is too local. Should we hire some smart guys to figure out just how local a government should be to its denizens to optimize its goodness?

/subby

On the whole, local governments need to be reigned in.  Too many goody two shoes serve in local government and treat them like their little fiefdoms and attempt to regulate everything to insane levels.

So why doesn't that logic apply to state governments? I can easily argue that there are a lot of goody two shoes serving in my state government who do very similar things to make the state into what they think of as a utopia. Why don't they need to be reigned in by the federal government?

Because the States are sovereign.


"Because [arbitrary distinction that has nothing to do with the principle]"

We understand that the distinction exists, we're asking you to justify it.
 
2014-03-06 12:39:23 PM  

Dimensio: sprgrss: Dimensio: Slackfumasta: It's 'State's rights', not 'Municipalities' rights'.

"Rights" are inherently a property of individuals. As collectives, neither "states" nor "municipalities" have rights, as the concept of a "collective right" is nonsensical.

A governing body, such as a state or a municipality, may have powers assigned to it, but it cannot have rights.

States have right because they are sovereign and do not have powers assigned to them, rather their constitutions function to limit the general rights of the States.

I disagree.

A Constitution assigns (and may limit) the powers of the governing body. The Constitution of the United States of America establishes the powers of the federal government and (primarily through recognition and protection of individual rights) establishes some limitations of that power. A state constitution serves the same purpose at the state level.


The Federal Constitution and the State constitutions function as completely different animals.  The Federal Constitution is a limited grant of power, the federal government can only operate where it is expressly granted authority, whilst the State Constitutions function as a limitation on power, which is why State governments have general police powers and the federal constitution doesn't.
 
Displayed 50 of 267 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report