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.
States vs Gun Rights..
Highball
Member Posts: 15,755
I have been reading over and over the statement that States 'have the right to limit' the Second Amendment.
I don't buy it. I do NOT believe that the Founders intended after shedding bunches of blood over freedom..to allow ANYBODY to ever deprive them of the means of stopping tyranny..ever again.
Not the fedgov...not the states. Not being a 'Constitutional Lawyer'..whatever in hell that is (as pointed out often by at least one member)..it still makes no sense at all to bleed and die so some sum beech over at the State House could disarm them....
I think that is thrown out there by those believing in gun control. A last desperate attempt to convince people that gun control "from the people is GOOD"...instead of the total EVIL it is.
My OPINION..is that a proper use of Federal Authority..would be to strike down ANY state attempt to limit firearms.
I don't buy it. I do NOT believe that the Founders intended after shedding bunches of blood over freedom..to allow ANYBODY to ever deprive them of the means of stopping tyranny..ever again.
Not the fedgov...not the states. Not being a 'Constitutional Lawyer'..whatever in hell that is (as pointed out often by at least one member)..it still makes no sense at all to bleed and die so some sum beech over at the State House could disarm them....
I think that is thrown out there by those believing in gun control. A last desperate attempt to convince people that gun control "from the people is GOOD"...instead of the total EVIL it is.
My OPINION..is that a proper use of Federal Authority..would be to strike down ANY state attempt to limit firearms.
Comments
Since Amendment II is the law of the land, and thus, is covered by federal law, states have no power to tack anything on it, whatsoever....
...but obviously, they do. The idea is to criminalize you and let you prove innocence. If you possess the funds, you will probably win, unless the justice system wants you incarcerated, and has done such things as stack the jury, and reject defense from the accused.
Of course, the problems with this line of thinking became apparent when the rift between Northern and Southern states occured over the issue of slavery and black citizenship. And thus the 14th Amendment was born. THe 14th Amendment applies SOME, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states, mostly the ones dealing with due process of law (like the 4th Amendment).
That's why it's important that your state's constituion contain a provision similar to the Second Amendment. The Michigan Constituion contains such a clause. It reads:
"Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
It's clear cut and straight-forward. Michigan guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Any opposition to Michigan gun control comes not from the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, but from Article I Section 6 of the State Constitution, which I quoted above.
My point....The Founders had ABSOLUTELY no intension of allowing states more of a shot of limiting freedom...then the fedgov.
Perhaps they thought that the people would never lose their sanity...?
Uhh, what would be the point of writing laws that are supposed to apply to the entire country if they never intended for the Bill of Rights to apply to the actions of the states?? I would like to stress that the 9th Amendment defined a right as something held by the people that were not enumerated the same way powers were enumerated by the US Constitution. I'm not buying this logic at all.
quote:It was believed that the states were least likely to limit individual freedoms and that it was only necessary to safeguard against an all-powerful federal government which might infringe on the rights of the individual.
That was the reason for the writing of the Articles of Confederation, not the US Constitution. The nature of the US Constitution was to unify the country into one recognized body, and not 13 individual "countries". The US Constitution outlines a limited scope main government, which was supposed to curb an all-powerful federal gov't. You might want to look into this, yourself, and see for yourself that you're not right about your assessment.
quote:That's why states have their own individual Constitutions. If they were bound by the United States Constitution, then why would the states make their own Constitutions with many of the same provisions?
Because of Article X of the Bill of Rights, that's why. To cover anything and everything not covered by the US Constitution. The restating of the right to keep and bear arms in state constitutions was meant specifically to reaffirm on a state level that this right exists, so as to keep in check and restate that should the federal gov't decide not to acknowledge this right, that the state would still accept it, and a call to arms would be the result.
In short... checks and balances.
quote:The answer is because the states were not bound by the provisions of the US Constitution.
WRONG!!!!
quote:It's clear cut and straight-forward. Michigan guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Any opposition to Michigan gun control comes not from the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, but from Article I Section 6 of the State Constitution, which I quoted above.
No, it applies to both. The fact that it ocurs twice for Michigan residents means it is a reinforcement of that right, and makes it a little harder to contradict.
This has been pointed out by Salzo...and others.
My point....The Founders had ABSOLUTELY no intension of allowing states more of a shot of limiting freedom...then the fedgov.
Perhaps they thought that the people would never lose their sanity...?
Highball- You really have to consider the time of ratification of the constitution. The founders(writers and proponents of the "federal" system and constitution), were in no position to dictate to the states how to run their own. Ratification BARELY passed, and only passed because enough of the state governments were satisfied with the founders explanations that the federal government would be very limited, and its powers would be very specific. They just shook off one opressive tyrant, now that they were free they did not want to give tyrannical powers to a new government. The states had to be assured that they would be free to govern themselves, and would only be limited in very specific areas, primarlily trade issues. The founders sold the bill of goods to the states by assuring them that they would be free to govern themselves in a manner that was appropriate for them. The states were different, basically nations of their own, with different cultures, different traditions, different needs. What was good for the people of Virginia, was not good for the people of New Hampshire. The people of Virginia were opposed to religion supported by the government. The people of New Hampshire, had a state religion, and collected taxes for the church. The constitution protected the right of the states to decide for themselves what role the state government would have with respect to religious issues, press issues, speech issues, MOST judicial and legal issues, gun and weapons issues-basically ANY issue that did not deal with trade.
The founders might have been suprised if a state restricted themselves when it came to arms, but they had no authority to prevent a state from placing shackles on themselves. The founders might have thought it wrong for a state government to endorse a particular religion (and some founders would have thought it odd for a state to take a nuetral position when it came to religion), but again, they had no authority to dictate to the states how they would handle religious issues.
Most states adopted a bill of rights to their state constitutions that was very similar to that of the federal constitution. This is important for two reasons- 1st- this was necessary, notwithstanding the federal constitution, because the federal constitution did not protect the rights of the people-it only protected the rights of the states. It would be reduntant to place a bill of rights in a state constitution, if the federal constitution was intended to bind the states to federal law dealing with those issues.
2nd-It indicates that the people of the individual states were just as concerned as "the founders" when it came to freedom. They wanted to be free, not only from opression from the federal government, but also their own government. Of course, one cant be free when they allow government, be it federal or local, to violate the constitutions of both the federal government, and their state. Unfortunately we have to deal with the complacement majority-but to expect the federal government to police the states to "save us" from an oppressive state government is ludicrous-the federal government is as evil as state governments-to think they are going to protect us from ourselves is foolish. The most important protection of the constitutions, is not the courts, not the legislatures, not the executives, but the people. It is the responsibility of the people to prevent constitutional infractions by their elected representatives, and it is important for the people to remove those representatives when they behave in an unconstitutional manner. We recently had an uprising here in Pennsylvania, when the legislature voted themselves raises, notwithstanding the PA constitution prohibiting them from doing so(they made sure they gave the judges raises also-and the judges had no problem with the law when it was in front of them-"the zone takes care of their own"). The citizens went nuts, and forced the legislature to rescind the law giving them a pay increase. This is how the constitutions have to be protected-not by the judges, the legislatures, the executives-the people have the responsibility. Unfortunatley, this type of uprising is rare, the people are most content allowing the government to violate the constitutions- because they dont really give a rats * about such things, and some even think they dont understand, and that their governments understand the constitutions better than they do (the government cant be violating the constitution, because the constitution says they cant violate thge constitution).
I think the best way to understand the federal bill of rights, is to understand that if it wasnt there, the constitution would still be the same-the bill of rights is reduntant-all of the protections it gives, are already in the main body of the constitution. Many founders were opposed to it for that very reason, and even suggested including the bill of rights, would dilute the constitution. It would eventually be used by the feds to encroach on areas that the constitution prohibited them from doing so, under the guise that it is OK as long as it doesnt violate the bill of rights(those guys were smart). And it has gone even a step further-now not only will they encroach on areas prohibited by the constitution, they even encroach on the bill of rights-everything the founders feared about an uncontrolled, constitution violating federal government, has been realized. The constitution isnt worth the paper its written on-and the real culprit is the complacent people. You cant blame the government-it is their job to shackle us (you know, "government by its nature is evil"). The blame is placed on the peoples shoulders-they arent supposed to allow governments to chain them up.
Is it a bill of rights that prohibits the feds, or ANY government from infringing-it really is a moot point, because the people dont care one way or the other-and if the people dont care, one shouldnt expect the government to care.
My personal opinion- I just assume that the bill of rights bind the federal government. If my community wants to prohibit lap dance parlors from opening in the neighborhood, I just assume we be allowed to do so. I dont want some federal government coming in and saying it violates "the free speech" of lap dancers. If my community want to have school prayer, I just assume we be allowed to do so. I dont want some federal government coming in and telling us we cant pray because it violates the first amendment(read the text-it doesnt). If a local government prohibits the discharging of firearms (which recently was passed in my township), I wont like it, all lobby to get it repealed, Ill write letters to the paper, I will speak to members of my community, I will vote against those councilmen who voted for it. I certainly am not going to run to some federal judge and say my rights are being violated- not only would he not care(hmm, I thought the second amendment protects me from local interference), it SHOULDNT be any of his business. If worse comes to worse, and the majority, through will or complacency, decides that the ban is what they want, I can always move to a freer place.
Any of the enureted rights in the bill of rights-I think wed be a lot better off to stop worrying about local and state interference, and be more concerned about federal interference.
I would have a lot easier time lobbying Joe the farmer and councilman who lives down the road, then I would lobbying Chuck Schumer. New York loves gun control, abortion, gay marriage, prohibiting speech, stealing a homeowners land, high taxes-by god let them have what they want. They like wearing shackles, let them have their shackles. I feel sorry for the minority of New Yorkers who are opposed to the shackles, but they can move.
The problem is when New York, and Chuck Schumer have a say over how I live, in Pennsylvania, via, an overbearing federal government. Social, morale, cultural, and GUN issues are the people of Pennsylvanias issues-and NO ONE in New York should have any say in the matter.
quote:The answer is because the states were not bound by the provisions of the US Constitution.
WRONG!!!!
The states were not originally bound by the provisions of the Constitution. It was not until the 14th Amendment that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were applied to the states, through the Amendment itself and through the application of the 9th Amendment to the states by the 14th Amendment. It has been argued (correctly) that the rights included in the Ninth Amendment includes all the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. So yes, you are correct, the 2nd Amendment DOES apply to the states, I did not word my original post properly to reflect this. But it does not directly apply to the states, it is applied to the states through the actions of the 14th Amendment, which in no way diminishes the importance or impact of the 2nd Amendment or any other part of the Bill of Rights. Basically, the 14th Amendment in conjunction with the 9th Amendment is what applies the other Amendments to the actions of individual states.
The importance of the state constituion having a provision similar to the federal second amendment covers your bases, you are right about this. You are both a citizen of your state and of America. We have a federal system of government, not a unitary one, where the states have a measure of soverignty within the government and the freedom to make their own laws on most matters.
The states were not originally bound by the provisions of the Constitution. It was not until the 14th Amendment that the provisions of the Bill of Rights were applied to the states, through the Amendment itself and through the application of the 9th Amendment to the states by the 14th Amendment. It has been argued (correctly) that the rights included in the Ninth Amendment includes all the other Amendments of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.
Basically, the 14th Amendment in conjunction with the 9th Amendment is what applies the other Amendments to the actions of individual states.
The ninth amendment has nothing to do with applying the bill of rights against the states. The 14th amendment is supposed to do that, though it doesnt. The 14th amendment is used so that the judges, and the federal government can dictate what rights we can and can not enjoy. Some courts have argued it is the bill of rights in its entirety, some say that only certain amendments, some judges say its only parts of certain amendments... bottom line, the 14th amendment has been construed to the point that judges will decide what rights we can and cant enjoy.
I dont have a copy of the constitution, so I am paraphrasing, but the ninth:
"The enumeration of certain rights, doesw not deny or disparage other rights retained by the people"-the purpose of this amendment, was to say that even though specific rights have been enumerated, that doesnt mean the feds can trample on other rights.
Today, judges use it to get other "rights" federally protected, ie the "right" to abortion, the right to sodomy, the right to lap dancing, etc. The way the ninth is used is such a perversion of its original intent.
You make a strong case. I wish I was interested enough to go dig out the rebuttal. I dug enough many years ago to be convinced that the fedgov was NEVER to limit citizens rights.
My personal belief is that they didn't intend allowing idiot slave/citizens the power to limit freedoms and rights, either...
Given your posture is correct...what then of the lion striding life-large..surrounded by cowards ?
Those poor souls supporting gun control, privacy invasions, swat teams...what does one do when surrounded by those desiring security...over FREEDOM...????
One thing I find very dissapointing is the many who have good intentions, who realize the government is violating the constitution, think that the only solution is for the courts to correct the infractions. I have a hard time understanding why people who know that a government is behaving wrong, would think a branch of thAt government would correct the infraction, and ONLY that branch of government can fix the mess. The ones who can save us from government, is the government we need saving from-really doesnt make much sense, does it? These people have to someday realize that we do not have friends in government, making sure our rights are not violated. THe courts are just as evil as the other branches. The founders intended that THE PEOPLE would be the guardians of freedom, and the constitution-certainly not the government, because they were all aware, that government is a necessary EVIL, and could never be construed as an entity whos purpose was to protect the rights of its citizens.
The constitutions were written for THE PEOPLE, not the government. It tells the people what their government can and can not do. It is the responsibility of the people to keep the government in check, and not the responsibility of government to check themselves.
As you are well aware...I wish for that Supreme Court decision...PRECISELY because I believe that it will go badly...and therefore the indecisive gun-owner gets the chance to behave as a man...or not, as the case may be.
These people have to someday realize that we do not have friends in government, making sure our rights are not violated.
Will enough realize.......in time?
I do not believe so. [V]
A few thoughts...
- I agree that the Federal government was a "hard sell" for the Founders. The States didn't want any government above them that would interfere with their affairs (remember they already had a confederacy, so why bind themselves to a stronger central government?), so the Founders had to design a federal system that appeared as harmless and passive as possible. I now believe that the Bill of Rights was designed to control how the Federal government dealt with any entity, whether another State government or an individual citizen. Beyond that the States could do whatever they damn well pleased. Salzo, described this concept very well in his lenghty post.
-The Civil War was the turning point. I now believe that the southern states LEGALLY seceeded from the Union. The Federal government ILLEGALLY forced these states into submission through military force. This is clearly unconstitutional and far outside the intended power of the Federal government.
-I believe that a case could be made that all Federal government since the Civil War has been illegitamate and therefore all Federal legislation enacted since the Civil War is unconstitutional. I question whether the Civil War Amendments (13, 14, 15) were legally ratified given the status of the formerly Confederate states. As I recall, these states were handicapped from opposing these amendments.
-The question is to whom the above case could be made. This may sound scary, but perhaps to a WORLD COURT? This could serve to advance the cause of State's Rights, however today I believe it would manifest itself by spawning a "Liberal Confederacy" of "Blue" states. California and Massachussets would probably be the first states to seceed, for all the wrong reasons.
JMHO,
WoundedWolf
Why ever would we allow the corrupt weasels in Washington power over us if we subdued the dozen or so families that control Mexico..? Why go to the trouble...just stay here and allow them to drive us into the ground HERE...