Supreme law of the land. Hence why States can only meet or exceed the strictness of a laws made by the Federal level. And if you read the 2A, shall not be infringed, which means no one can made a law that interferes our right to own guns.
The 2A, the Framer's intent and SCOTUS rulings discussion.
- Thread starter ArmedCorgi
- Start date
Supreme law of the land. Hence why States can only meet or exceed the strictness of a laws made by the Federal level. And if you read the 2A, shall not be infringed, which means no one can made a law that interferes our right to own guns.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
The First Continental Congress. Have you heard of it?
Bill of Rights - The U.S. Constitution
And will you still ignore the comma and the word and?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Here we go with the courts again. Have you read Article 6?
^ I am with him courts do not supercede the constitution. They are there to enforce the constitution.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Does the federal government always supersede the states. The answer is no. It’s where and how each law is worded. The commerce clause is how most of the laws get imposed on the states. But it doesn’t always work.
Go look at the original School Gun Free Zone law. It was ruled unconstitutional until congress reworded the law to include a interstate commerce component to it.
Go look at the original School Gun Free Zone law. It was ruled unconstitutional until congress reworded the law to include a interstate commerce component to it.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
They interpret the constitution. The executive branch is supposed to enforce it
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
The more you post @nortatoga the more it shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. Google is pretty easy to use. You should google your thoughts first before you post them.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Yep.
Again, that’s when that “well regulated “ part would state the states could make laws on it according to the courts until Heller.
Please read up on the 14th and 15th.
Go read the actual text of the first: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
. It didn’t apply to the states until the 14 th admendment.
Or do you think a state can make a law against the freedom of speech ?
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
And where is your proof? Other then your opinion!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Again. Did you read Article 6? That should be the end of it.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
How about the actual parts of the constitution that I posted?
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Yes that is a good place to start! The part that restricts the States and not the Federal Government!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Alright. I’ve tried in good faith to post article 6 with the commas and explained it you. You ignore it repeatedly because it doesn’t fit your narrative . There’s not much else I can do here with you other than respond to your snide comments .
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
Not a trap thread @nortatoga, just an outlet for this dicussion.
Sorry bad wording I meant uphold. You are correct executive enforces it. I meant enforce like make sure laws dont go against.
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
So the 1st admendment doesn’t apply to the states?
And did you understand article Six?
“and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
Are you saying if Obama had signed the UN treaty , the 2A no longer applies? Or if they signed a treaty against the freedom of speech , it would disappear?
No, SCOTUS ruled on this as it applies to the 4th and 5th admendment.
Please learn how constitutional law works and it’s historical interpretation. Not all of words and inferences mean the same thing today as it did back then. Ex:what a militia was back then is different than what we think of it today.
Remember the 10th admendment gave power to the people and the states.
“
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
From Wikipedia:
In Printz v. United States (1997),[23] the Court ruled that part of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Actviolated the Tenth Amendment. The act required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on people attempting to purchase handguns. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, applied New York v. United States to show that the act violated the Tenth Amendment. Since the act "forced participation of the State's executive in the actual administration of a federal program", it was unconstitutional.[23]
Please understand that you can’t cherrypick a part and not consider the whole thing or it’s admendments.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Shall not be infringed.
Shall not be infringed.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I think you have what I’m saying backwards. What I’m saying is that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution. Period. That’s it. I don’t know where any UN peace treaties come into this.
I love the Constitution. All of it. Even the parts that I do not agree with.
I love the fact that we, We the People, have the power to change, alter, add to and take away from this living and breathing document.
I love the fact that our Founding Fathers were really, really smart and way ahead of their times. I love the fact that they were able to foresee the future and added to the Founding Documents the ability to alter and change them.
I only wish we as Americans could actually follow what they gave us. Black and white, easy to understand and comprehend.
Things like the Second Amendment.... Does it need to be changed, altered or thrown away? Not 100% up to me to decide. But, our FF's gave us the ability to change it if needed. Just follow the directions they gave us.
I love the fact that we, We the People, have the power to change, alter, add to and take away from this living and breathing document.
I love the fact that our Founding Fathers were really, really smart and way ahead of their times. I love the fact that they were able to foresee the future and added to the Founding Documents the ability to alter and change them.
I only wish we as Americans could actually follow what they gave us. Black and white, easy to understand and comprehend.
Things like the Second Amendment.... Does it need to be changed, altered or thrown away? Not 100% up to me to decide. But, our FF's gave us the ability to change it if needed. Just follow the directions they gave us.
JaguarJaguarGolf
6.5 Creedmoor
Wasn't there something in one of the recent big 2A rulings about the 2A being "incorporated" into law?
What really matters though is that as per US military training : You only have the rights you are willing to defend.
What really matters though is that as per US military training : You only have the rights you are willing to defend.
ArmedCorgi
.475 A&M Magnum
As smart and foward thinking as they were, there are things that even they couldn't have predicted or accounted for. This is a core argument concerning this amendment. For what it's worth, I believe the true meaning of the amendment was for civilians to always have free and clear access to military grade arms or a comparable alternative. This isn't meaning individual ownership of nukes or chemical/biological weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons are mostly political tools. However it most certianly means the ownership of small arms sufficiant to fight and repell domestic tyranny and or a foreign invader concurrent with the times and technology.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes. But for some reason he goes bananas defending that it didn’t apply previously. Wanting the good old days where one couldn’t carry at all open or concealed is my guess since back then some states prohibited both.
I mean look at his signature. He doesn’t want you to have the right to carry concealed. No one would put that in their signature unless they stood for it.
Last edited:
The 14 Amendment applied the bill of right to the states.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
The 2A does not give us the RIGHT to ARMS .. it tells the GOVT and STATES .. WE Have the RIGHT to own any damn weapon we can afford to buy or make .. 
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Imagine if you will, a group of men who have been living under an oppressive monarch for their whole lives.
They protest the oppressive taxes, and even stage provocative demonstrations like breaking in and destroying a shipment of a popular breakfast beverage, but they don't start overt fighting until....
One day that monarch attempts to disarm then. The monarch isn't trying to take their personal weapons, those they can keep. He sends his troops to capture some artillery pieces that these people believe they have in inalienable right to possess.
Artillery that has no place, except on the battlefield. Nobody uses artillery for hunting, or self defense, or for any other purpose than waging war.
When the monarch sends 700 soldiers to capture those cannons, those men organize an effective military force and defeat then. Preventing the monarch's gun control policy from being implemented.
Then over the next couple years, those men fight a war against that monarch. A war that, at times, seemed hopeless, but they would fight anyway rather than lay down their arms and submit to the monarch's demands.
Now, years later, these men have managed to achieve victory, they have driven the monarch's forces from their new nation.
When they are drafting the covenant by which that nation should be governed they include a provision, second in the list of fundamental rights that the government is supposed to protect. It is worded with phrases like "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Now, what sorts of gun control activities do you think those men would consider legitimate ?
They protest the oppressive taxes, and even stage provocative demonstrations like breaking in and destroying a shipment of a popular breakfast beverage, but they don't start overt fighting until....
One day that monarch attempts to disarm then. The monarch isn't trying to take their personal weapons, those they can keep. He sends his troops to capture some artillery pieces that these people believe they have in inalienable right to possess.
Artillery that has no place, except on the battlefield. Nobody uses artillery for hunting, or self defense, or for any other purpose than waging war.
When the monarch sends 700 soldiers to capture those cannons, those men organize an effective military force and defeat then. Preventing the monarch's gun control policy from being implemented.
Then over the next couple years, those men fight a war against that monarch. A war that, at times, seemed hopeless, but they would fight anyway rather than lay down their arms and submit to the monarch's demands.
Now, years later, these men have managed to achieve victory, they have driven the monarch's forces from their new nation.
When they are drafting the covenant by which that nation should be governed they include a provision, second in the list of fundamental rights that the government is supposed to protect. It is worded with phrases like "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Now, what sorts of gun control activities do you think those men would consider legitimate ?
Celt
.450/400 Nitro Ex
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Wow New York, Maryland and New Jersey don't have a State Constitutional right to keep and bear arms! And yet we do!
Also try not to be so disingenuous the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons, says nothing about military grade anything!
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/six-states-without-constitutional-right-keep-bear-arms/
The Six States With No Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms
BY DEAN WEINGARTEN |
NOV 02, 2014 |
96 COMMENTS
There are six states with constitutions that don’t explicitly protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The last state to add such a protection was Wisconsin, in 1998. The last stage of the process to amend the Badger State’s founding document was via a referendum and it passed with an overwhelming 74% of the vote. The sorry six that still lack enshrinement of the RKBA are listed below. And it won’t surprise you that these states are some of the least supportive of gun ownership and Second Amendment rights . . .
New York: Dominated by New York City politics, New York has often taken the lead in introducing and passing egregiously restrictive gun laws. The first significant one was in 1911, the infamous Sullivan Act, ostensibly designed to fight organized crime. The latest is the so called “SAFE Act” passed with out debate in the middle of the night. New York is ranked 50th by Guns & Ammo and gets an A- on the most recent Brady Campaign scorecard.
New Jersey: Garden State gun laws start with the premise that everything to do with guns is illegal. The state then tells you under what very restrictive conditions you may own, shoot, transport, or — for a tiny group, mostly judges and retired police officers — carry a gun. New Jersey is ranked 49th by G&A, A- on the Brady scorecard.
California: California has a long and distinguished history of legislation designed to keep minorities disarmed. The Golden State is the only state in recent years to (mostly) ban the open carry of firearms and is ranked 47th by G&A with another A- by the Brady Center.
Maryland: One of the few remaining “may issue” states, Maryland’s gun laws are some of the most restrictive in the nation thanks largely to the efforts of Governor Martin O’Malley. Maryland is ranked 43rd by G&A, A- by the Bradys.
Minnesota: Despite the oversight in its constitution, Minnesota’s gun law could be far worse, keeping it out of the bottom 10 on Guns & Ammo’s listing. The state has a well-organized state-level Second Amendment supporter movement. Minnesota is ranked 39th by G&A and gets an average C on the Brady scorecard.
Iowa: While Iowa is a middle-of-the-road state on firearms restrictions, it was one of the last to pass “shall issue” legislation. Iowa is ranked 38th by G&A, and received a C- by the Bradys.
It’s clear that state constitutions offer some protection for your rights. Several ballot measures this year are meant to strengthen a states constitutional protections. The most recent of these passed in Missouri. Alabama’s Amendment 3 will be on the ballot in a few days. Kinda makes you wonder how the vote would go if support for the RKBA would be put to a vote in the Empire State. But that’s just kooky talk.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
nortatoga
.338 Win Mag
Yes @dsdmmat I have posted McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia many times but Will is under the impression that the 2A always applied to the States, That is why I asked Will *Can you provide anything that say's BOR's was applied to the STATES!! WE ARE WAITING!!!!!*
spat
.700 Nitro Express
The 2A doesn't create the RKBA, it recognizes that it is a direct consequence of the fundamental primordial human right to self defense.
If the RKBA as a right exists for all time, and all men, then how can it not apply to the states ?