Posted on 04/21/2012 8:58:05 AM PDT by OneWingedShark
You might need a link to the State's Constitution and Statutes.
I'd appreciate comments, criticisms, and suggestions.
Ping.
Pre-Constitution Practices and Several Precedent State Constitutions
THE SECOND AMENDMENT DID NOT COME INTO BEING OUT OF THIN AIR- THE SEVERAL STATES EXISTED FIRST BEFORE THE UNITED STATES EXISTED-
The States Constitutional Rights Came First before the USA or the U.S. Constitution Existed
The GUN RIGHTS advocates should file also for states` rights in Obama`s and other states`violation of their respective state constitutions which have more explicit right-to-bear-arms- freedom clauses language than the U.S. Constitution and have precedent used as the basis for the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment appears merely to have synopsized the explicit language in the States` Constitutions, because that is where the 13 original colonies/states spelled out their states` citizens` constitutional rights and they knew that this is where the Second Amendment originated.
The Second Amendment did not originate out of thin air but was born out of the states` constitutions` explicit right-to-bears-arms freedom clauses language.
For example:
`XL. And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of EVERY MAN who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.`
www.nhinet.org/ccs/docs/ny-1777.htm [NY 1777 Constitution] (my caps)
Vermont Constitution
`Article 16th. Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State
MILITIA
§ 59. Militia The inhabitants of this State shall be trained and armed for its defense, under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions, as Congress, agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, and the Legislature of this State, shall direct.`
New Hampshire Constitution of 1784
`PART I. - THE BILL OF RIGHTS
II. All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights. among which are --the enjoying and defending life and liberty --acquiring, possessing and protecting property --and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness`
Maine Constitution 1820
`Keep and bear arms Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.`
Massachusetts Constitution 1780
`Art. XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.`
Connecticut Constitution
`Sec. 17. Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state` ` 8 May 1792
``Act of Congress requiring every citizen between 18 and 45 years of age to be enrolled in the militia, and armed and equipped at his own cost.``
-Harper`s Book of Facts, # 9 of 34, search entry ``citizen`` www.books.google.com
North Carolina Constitution 1776
17. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defense of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. =======================
Pennsylvania Constitution 1776 XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Not only that but the 1794 treaties between NY State and the Iroquois and federal approval of same give the Mohawks and Senecas and the othe tribes, Onondagas, etc, the right to bear arms on the reservation forever.
So my cousins with AK-47`s on Akwesasne. have more gun rights than I do?
Ridiculous!!
In the legal world, there is no ambiguity about the understanding of this word. It is the most definitive form, similar to the effect of “must”.
>In the legal world, there is no ambiguity about the understanding of this word. It is the most definitive form, similar to the effect of “must”.
This, my good sir, is precisely why I think to myself “What the f—” when I read the statute and the [State] Constitution. Things could not be clearer that the statute does indeed deny the right to bear arms, and therefore must be illegitimate. How can the definitive form be so ignored?
>Not only that but the 1794 treaties between NY State and the Iroquois and federal approval of same give the Mohawks and Senecas and the othe tribes, Onondagas, etc, the right to bear arms on the reservation forever.
I wonder if any of the tribes would be willing to set up firearms (and ammo) manufacturing facilities.
thanks for the ping Sir Shark...how about filing a fed suit for conspiracy to deprive Rights at the same time ???
i noted a couple small gram errors i believe, but the straightforward *facts* are all excellent...
>>I’m thinking of taking this to a lawyer and saying: Mr. Lawyer, if you please, translate this to legalese.
>
>thanks for the ping Sir Shark...
Thank you for being interested in my “tilting at windmills.”
>how about filing a fed suit for conspiracy to deprive Rights at the same time ???
An interesting idea; I do, however, ascribe to the notion that things should be addressed at the closest (usually lowest) level possible.
I don’t know if doing so would impact a state-level filing first; if it does impact it, then how?
>i noted a couple small gram errors i believe,
Where? I’d like to have things spiffed up before printing a hardcopy and marching to the lawyer.
>but the straightforward *facts* are all excellent...
Thank you; John Adams had it right when he said that facts are stubborn things.
The state law does not deny the right to bear arms, generally, but only in certain venues. Heh. For those with offices in “state buildings”, I can understand why they want to be “secure” in their offices. However, it IS a state office, and we should be able to carry there as well. There may be a few employees capped from time to time, but that may actually improve government “service”.
>The state law does not deny the right to bear arms, generally, but only in certain venues.
Indeed, but the denial of the right is still a denial; that denial is itself prohibited.
>For those with offices in “state buildings”, I can understand why they want to be “secure” in their offices. However, it IS a state office, and we should be able to carry there as well. There may be a few employees capped from time to time, but that may actually improve government “service”.
Depending on your view it could itself be a service. there are, IMO, too many in government who seem to think that their position makes them rather untouchable. (And, with such as Fast and furious, they seem to be in the process of being proved right.) When the government becomes injuroud to the rights of the people, the people themselves have the right/obligation to “alter or abolish” the government.
There's Two Choices... Stand Up and Be Counted ... Or Line Up and Be Numbered .
>>I’m thinking of taking this to a lawyer and saying: Mr. Lawyer, if you please, translate this to legalese.
>
>There’s Two Choices... Stand Up and Be Counted ... Or Line Up and Be Numbered .
I’m trying to do/be the former; but sometimes I think I’ll wake up someday to find I was in the latter.
You are preaching to the choir! ;-)
I thought you might be interested in this, if only for the “argumentative” nature (i.e. blasting at State infringements on their own Constitutions).
Forgot to ping you.
I actually see a lot of hope [countering police-statism] because of the broad nature of the above.
Consider what it would be like if the government said that 1) only citizens were afforded protection under the federal Constitution, and 2) that say, refusing to talk to the police or demanding a warrant or disagreeing with a government-endorsed position were grounds for terminating one’s ‘citizenship status.’
It is things like “every person” which will afford SOME manner of legal protection, though to be honest at *that* point it becomes almost moot.
Good news on this front; though not a whole lot.
After making several inquiries as to where the authority to post “No Unauthorized Weapons,” and being redirected to the city’s lawyer’s office and positing my questions (which weren’t ever answered, just a “we’ll get back to you”) I noticed that the sign was taken down when I went to pay my electric bill.
I guess my inquisition triggered an “Oh, crap, we could be in BIG trouble if someone pushes us on this!” reaction in the legal-office.
A minor victory, but I’ll take it.
Great job! We simply behave like ants, and swarm them one at a time, wherever. Eventually, they cannot stand against us!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.