In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Seven States Failing to Protect RTKBA
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Seven States Failing to Protect 'Right to Keep and Bear Arms,' Says Lawyer
By Jim Burns
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
April 26, 2002
(CNSNews.com) - Seven states do not have clauses in their constitutions allowing citizens the right to keep and bear arms, an attorney and research director of the Colorado based Independence Institute warned Friday at the opening of the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Reno, Nev.
Those seven states are Maryland, Iowa, New Jersey, California, Minnesota, Delaware and Massachusetts, according to attorney David Kopel, who in addressing an NRA firearms law seminar, called on members in those states to write their legislators to get such clauses enacted.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does contain the following language. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
However, "State constitutions control your state and local governments," Kopel said. And with the exception of the seven states, "Most people have decided to put into their state constitutions an explicit right to bear arms to keep the state or local governments from disarming law abiding good citizens. The (United States) Supreme Court has not ruled definitively whether the Second Amendment is enforceable against the states."
Massachusetts nullified firearms related language in its state constitution, said Kopel. And the state's stance toward gun ownership has won praise from the "Open Society Institute," a New York based private foundation that seeks to reduce gun violence.
The group Friday issued a report card for all 50 states, grading the states in terms of how far they go to restrict firearms. Massachusetts scored the highest, a "76" out of 100. Coming in second was Hawaii, followed by California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Iowa and North Carolina.
Kopel said it would be difficult to change those state constitutions not containing firearms related clauses.
"In New Jersey, they don't have the right of initiative in the state. They don't have the ability to change their constitution by collecting petitions to put an initiative on the state ballot," Kopel said. In other places such as Maryland, he added, the process would begin with the election of state lawmakers, who "support an explicit right to bear arms in their constitution."
Pro-gun advocates in California would also have a difficult time changing their state constitution, Kopel said
"Californians have a tough situation because the media there is so anti-gun and the costs of running election campaigns there are so intensive, it would be a big challenge to do a successful statewide initiative there," Kopel said.
"In any state," Kopel continued, "having the right to bear arms and how much protection you get from the state Supreme Court can vary a lot. In Colorado, we have had some state supreme courts like in the early 70s, that were very law abiding, protective of that right and we have had courts that ... have really [been] contemptuous of that right.
"There are a lot of state supreme courts that would uphold almost any gun law short of total gun prohibition," said Kopel.
Professor Eugene Volokh, who teaches firearms law at the UCLA Law School, believes Kopel is wrong in arguing that firearms clauses should be added to state constitutions.
"The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a right of the people, not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard," Volokh said, "The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights," Volokh told the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights.
"These rights are clearly individual -- they protect the right of the people by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right," said Volokh.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200204\NAT20020426c.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By Jim Burns
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
April 26, 2002
(CNSNews.com) - Seven states do not have clauses in their constitutions allowing citizens the right to keep and bear arms, an attorney and research director of the Colorado based Independence Institute warned Friday at the opening of the National Rifle Association's annual convention in Reno, Nev.
Those seven states are Maryland, Iowa, New Jersey, California, Minnesota, Delaware and Massachusetts, according to attorney David Kopel, who in addressing an NRA firearms law seminar, called on members in those states to write their legislators to get such clauses enacted.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution does contain the following language. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
However, "State constitutions control your state and local governments," Kopel said. And with the exception of the seven states, "Most people have decided to put into their state constitutions an explicit right to bear arms to keep the state or local governments from disarming law abiding good citizens. The (United States) Supreme Court has not ruled definitively whether the Second Amendment is enforceable against the states."
Massachusetts nullified firearms related language in its state constitution, said Kopel. And the state's stance toward gun ownership has won praise from the "Open Society Institute," a New York based private foundation that seeks to reduce gun violence.
The group Friday issued a report card for all 50 states, grading the states in terms of how far they go to restrict firearms. Massachusetts scored the highest, a "76" out of 100. Coming in second was Hawaii, followed by California, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, Iowa and North Carolina.
Kopel said it would be difficult to change those state constitutions not containing firearms related clauses.
"In New Jersey, they don't have the right of initiative in the state. They don't have the ability to change their constitution by collecting petitions to put an initiative on the state ballot," Kopel said. In other places such as Maryland, he added, the process would begin with the election of state lawmakers, who "support an explicit right to bear arms in their constitution."
Pro-gun advocates in California would also have a difficult time changing their state constitution, Kopel said
"Californians have a tough situation because the media there is so anti-gun and the costs of running election campaigns there are so intensive, it would be a big challenge to do a successful statewide initiative there," Kopel said.
"In any state," Kopel continued, "having the right to bear arms and how much protection you get from the state Supreme Court can vary a lot. In Colorado, we have had some state supreme courts like in the early 70s, that were very law abiding, protective of that right and we have had courts that ... have really [been] contemptuous of that right.
"There are a lot of state supreme courts that would uphold almost any gun law short of total gun prohibition," said Kopel.
Professor Eugene Volokh, who teaches firearms law at the UCLA Law School, believes Kopel is wrong in arguing that firearms clauses should be added to state constitutions.
"The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a right of the people, not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard," Volokh said, "The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights," Volokh told the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights.
"These rights are clearly individual -- they protect the right of the people by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right," said Volokh.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200204\NAT20020426c.html
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878