Replies

That's how our country was built. This is right from the Constitutional Convention itself:

Mr. SHERMAN, was for securing the rights of the people where requisite. The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_912.asp

See also the 10th amendment. This is a jurisdictional issue. Every state, thankfully, has its own Bill of Rights.

We do not have "one big nation", the Founders repeatedly warned against that sort of dangerous scenario. - commonly, when referring to Montesquieu who was one of the important intellects behind the idea that big republics are big failures. We do not want "one big nation", we want the states to have powers and rights to use against the federal government. We want our localities empowered.

Let's take for example Texas, their constitution states:

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

This would, reasonably, allow for passing laws to (legally) disallow pre-teens from owning or purchasing firearms.

Iowa is perhaps even more interesting, as they are currently working to advance a "second amendment" for the Iowa State Constitution where they currently do not have one. They need one.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/19/iowa-house-republicans-advance-pro-gun-constitutional-amendment/4208159001/

The states are generally more conservative than Washington D.C., so I will always side with the states having this kind of power over granting it to the Federal government.

The State Declarations of Rights are not repealed by this Constitution; and being in force are sufficient.

Correct, but in this instance we have the opposite case: the Federally recognized right is more open (or same as) than any of the State's methods of recognizing said right. The Constitution states that the people have the broadest version of the right. So how can a State Constitution then take that away?

See also the 10th amendment. This is a jurisdictional issue. Every state, thankfully, has its own Bill of Rights.

How does the 10th apply in this case? The 2nd clearly states "shall not be infringed". Anything less than no infringement whatsoever IS an infringement. There is no power to infringe left to the States, it is clearly NOT a power they retain.

Theoretically, some people could argue the lack of incorporation prior to the 14th. (Which wouldn't apply anymore, now that the 14th is here.) However, the 2nd was never limited to FedGov (Congress shall not), from the very beginning it placed the right to arms in the hands of the people, not a benefit the Feds or State could grant or take at their pleasure. The 2nd places the right ONLY within the people.

Also, your argument here basically eliminates the 2nd, and places the right ONLY as a privilege granted by States. Like you ended your reply with, that would mean that States like Iowa with no version of the 2nd would therefore have no explicit right to arms whatsoever?

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

This would, reasonably, allow for passing laws to (legally) disallow pre-teens from owning or purchasing firearms.

While this doesn't exactly apply to the above discussion, how does that coincide? Are pre-teens not part of "every citizen"? How does disallowing a large block of persons from owning or buying firearms a part of regulating the wearing thereof? Owning or purchasing are not wearing. And even if you could argue that they were, blanket banning isn't related to specifically preventing crime either.

The states are generally more conservative than Washington D.C., so I will always side with the states having this kind of power over granting it to the Federal government.

I fully agree, but in this case we aren't discussing some gray area that FedGov is trying to nose into despite having no explicit power to do so. This isn't a power granted to FedGov, and it's not granted to the States either. It is explicitly not granted to either entity, and no allowance is made for either entity to take any powers related to that right. A general statement (10th) does not override a specific one (2nd). In fact, the very wording further reinforces my point: The powers not given to FedGov, nor prohibited to the States ... are reserved to the people.