Replies

"I will point out that the 2ND Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, does not proscribe any punishment for infractions thereof."

You are confusing the point by assuming carrying a weapon or not carrying a weapon is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not a Law wherein such has a remedy for violating it.

The 2nd Amendment affirms we the citizens have a right to defend ourselves by use of arms. Thus a state law saying we are allowed to openly carry a weapon (or carry a concealed one) is redundant and more importantly Unconstitutional being Federal Law Trumps State Law and The Constitution Trumps all.

More precisely: Any Law be it Federal State or Municipal that either hinders or permits a citizen to own or carry a weapon is Unconstitutional. If the Founding Fathers were alive today they would storm Congress and tar and feather every damn Congress Critter condemning them all for their treasonous usurpation of our Founding Documents.

>>”I will point out that the 2ND Amendment, like the rest of the Constitution, does not proscribe any punishment for infractions thereof.”
>
>You are confusing the point by assuming carrying a weapon or not carrying a weapon is in violation of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment is not a Law wherein such has a remedy for violating it.

No, I’m not. There is no punishment for any law (Federal, State, County, Municipality, etc) which does violate the 2nd Amendment: that is, any which infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

>The 2nd Amendment affirms we the citizens have a right to defend ourselves by use of arms.

Agreed.

>Thus a state law saying we are allowed to openly carry a weapon (or carry a concealed one) is redundant and more importantly Unconstitutional being Federal Law Trumps State Law and The Constitution Trumps all.

This is incorrect. Federal law does NOT trump State law; as per the 10th Amendment any law which is outside the explicit scope of the federal government as set forth by the Constitution is contra-constitutional and null and void. {Though [federal] judges will fight this “wrong interpretation” to their dying breath; it would strip them of much power.}

Furthermore, redundancy is a good thing. I live in New Mexico which has in its State Constitution the following:
Art II, Sec. 6. [Right to bear arms.]
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense,
for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall
be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate,
in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and
November 2, 1986.)

Using this portion of the State Constitution I can challenge a state law which, say, prohibits firearms on school properties w/o having to take the case into a federal court. But it ALSO means that, should I lose such a suit, I could ‘re-apply’ and challenge it on @nd Amendment issues. It is in this way that redundancy concerning the affirmation of rights, to the exclusion of the legitimacy of [some] laws, is a VERY good thing.

Lastly, the doctrine of “incorporation” is, as applied, a horrible and terrible thing to the states. Why? Because the restrictions as-written in the Bill of Rights *must* have their wording changed in order to apply to the states. Consider the 1st Amendment; it prohibits the Congress from producing laws which, for one, prohibit the exercise of religion*. Most States have a Legislature, which is *NOT* a Congress. But under incorporation the States are held to be barred from passing any law which prohibits religious expression.

* Religious exercise was chosen at random; and is actually likely moot point in regards to incorporation as all the State Constitutions I’ve seen guarantee Freedom of Religion; the real point is that the actual text of the Constitution *MUST* be changed in order to apply to the States as it currently does; and if the Judiciary can declare these changes-in-text to apply to the states then the Judiciary has de facto Amendment power over the Constitution.

>More precisely: Any Law be it Federal State or Municipal that either hinders or permits a citizen to own or carry a weapon is Unconstitutional.

Agreed; though I prefer the term “contra-Constitutional” as ‘unconstitutional’ is so overused as to be rather impotent.

>If the Founding Fathers were alive today they would storm Congress and tar and feather every damn Congress Critter condemning them all for their treasonous usurpation of our Founding Documents.

Quite agreed.
And they’d probably hang the Supreme Court*; a more lawless branch of government does not exist than the Judiciary.

*There are several USSC decisions that are absolutely horrid, like Kelo v. New London, which in effect cancels any 5th Amendment protection from imminent domain. Also, Roe v. Wade can be argued as being Treasonous because: the second amendment afirms that the militia is nessacary to the security of a free state, and the State Constitutions [typically] include all males of 18-45 as being in the militia, so the wholesale slaughter of unborn MALE Citizens from `73 to `93 —all of whom would be militia age by now— which is somewhere between 14.2 million and 16.8 million** of which the militia has been deprived: such deprivation of fighting souls is a traditional aid for enemies (and qualifies for giving aid to the enemies of the States).

** http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/abortionstats.html, abortions from `73 to `93 summed and multiplied by .56 (statistically there is a higher probability for conceiving a boy than a girl).