City Councilman Tries to Infringe On Man's 2nd Amendment Rights!

[fearthereaperx]

 

[fearthereaperx]

And he walked away too, what a little baby

 

[LibertyEagle]

What a big wuss. lol

 

[Quark]

Wow, that's an awesome mayor though!

 

[SpreadOfLiberty]

I don't think my city council has a lawyer present at the meetings.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

Douchebag! Anyone else saw how many other infringers left with that city asshole council member?

 

[Rothbardian Girl]

Actually, this is a very interesting constitutional question. Assuming the right to bear arms was not already written into this state's constitution (I am in fact not sure if it is or not), would the city councilman be justified in attempting to ban guns? I just ask because the idea that the Bill of Rights as set forth in the Constitution applies to the states is a relatively new one (the "incorporation doctrine"), starting only after the 1890s. The Supreme Court justified this new interpretation with the due process clause.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that the only thing saying that states are not allowed to infringe on rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights is some rather loose judicial interpretation. Just curious what strict constitutionalists think of this conundrum.

 

[Aeroneous]

Solid mayor. This is why I want to get on my city council... uninformed people holding relatively easily obtainable positions can infringe on our rights just as much as the federal government.

 

[Danke]

Great Mayor, I hope he starts packing too.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Actually, this is a very interesting constitutional question. Assuming the right to bear arms was not already written into this state's constitution (I am in fact not sure if it is or not), would the city councilman be justified in attempting to ban guns? I just ask because the idea that the Bill of Rights as set forth in the Constitution applies to the states is a relatively new one (the "incorporation doctrine"), starting only after the 1890s. The Supreme Court justified this new interpretation with the due process clause.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that the only thing saying that states are not allowed to infringe on rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights is some rather loose judicial interpretation. Just curious what strict constitutionalists think of this conundrum.

 

[lx43]

What a puss!

 

[EBounding]

I could see this happening in my city....

 

[deadfish]

Awesome vid... here is the author's comment explaining the edit:

I am the author of the edited video. It was taken from the video posted at the Oak Harbor city website and edited.

I cut most of the meeting out. The citizens comments start at the beginning of the meeting and the Mayors comments came at the end so approximately 2 or more hours of regular city business was cut out.

The only thing "hinky" here is that I wanted to show just the relavant exchanges and not the whole city council meeting. Sorry for any confusion this has caused.

Cliff Howard

 

[satchelmcqueen]

great vid

 

[Neil Desmond]

That guy reminds me of a cross between James Tolkan, the actor who played the principal in Back to the Future (he's also been in Top Gun and other movies), and Mini-me:

Difference is that I like all these characters & actors.

Forget about this guy; we need to talk about what we're going to do about this mayor - he's awesome! He needs a promotion to governor of his state...or maybe even President!

 

[akforme]

Actually, this is a very interesting constitutional question. Assuming the right to bear arms was not already written into this state's constitution (I am in fact not sure if it is or not), would the city councilman be justified in attempting to ban guns? I just ask because the idea that the Bill of Rights as set forth in the Constitution applies to the states is a relatively new one (the "incorporation doctrine"), starting only after the 1890s. The Supreme Court justified this new interpretation with the due process clause.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that the only thing saying that states are not allowed to infringe on rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights is some rather loose judicial interpretation. Just curious what strict constitutionalists think of this conundrum.

Whether it applies to states or not doesn't matter since the council members took an oath to follow it. That was a council decision at some point that could be changed.

 

[Confederate]

That's a good mayor!!!

 

[ClydeCoulter]

Actually, this is a very interesting constitutional question. Assuming the right to bear arms was not already written into this state's constitution (I am in fact not sure if it is or not), would the city councilman be justified in attempting to ban guns? I just ask because the idea that the Bill of Rights as set forth in the Constitution applies to the states is a relatively new one (the "incorporation doctrine"), starting only after the 1890s. The Supreme Court justified this new interpretation with the due process clause.

I guess what I'm trying to get at here is that the only thing saying that states are not allowed to infringe on rights as enumerated in the Bill of Rights is some rather loose judicial interpretation. Just curious what strict constitutionalists think of this conundrum.

Of what use is a "bill of rights" if the acknowlegement of such rights cannot be exercised in any state? If we consider the Constitution as a contract between the states then each state was in agreement with that acknowlegement, although the "bill of rights" amendments were passed fairly quickly after the initial version. (and I think it was promised that they would be added in order to get all states to pass the initial version).

Was it first challenged in the 1890's?