>>”Can you show me the portion in the NY [or NJ] Constitution where it explicitly restricts the right to keep and bear arms?”
>
>Strawman much? I never said anything about state Constitutions.
You did: “Once you legally give standing to an entity to write Constitutional Law (say a State Reaffirming the Right to keep and Bear Arms) then you allow lawyers leeway to widen that legal scope and all of the Sudden State Law overrides the Constitution.”
>I pointed out that allowing such gives legal standing and precedent which is used by Lib lawyers to move us further down the Slippery Slope.
“Precedent” and Constitutional Law are two VERY different beasts.
‘Precedent’ *spit* is nothing more than the Judiciary playing the children’s game “telephone” with your [legal] rights.
(”Well, Judge Ass McHattery said that you cannot yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater because riots would ensue, so one cannot criticize politicians in ‘town hall’ meetings as riots may ensue.”) — BTW, the correct interpretation is not to say that “free speech” is limited, but to say that injuries resultant from actions are culpable to the actor (you are perfectly free to slander, or to perjure, but those can/should carry consequences)... though maybe such act is justified, such as there actually being a fire.
Constitutional Law, on the other hand, is *exactly* like the illustration I showed of the contradiction between State Statute and State Constitution: the only thing that needs to be done is to *gasp* Read The Actual Law [Constitution].
>BTW you will note that the Tehth Amendment also denotes that the States have purview over all things that are not denoted in the Constitution. Which also tells us they have no right or standing to write law which is covered by the Constitution.
Not exactly; just because a right/obligation has been given to the Federal Government does not invalidate such by the States or People. An excellent example is the Militia; the Militia are controlled by the State/People and are military in nature BUT the Constitution gives the Federal Government the power to create/operate military power. (There is a difference between Army and Naval forces in the Constitution, but that is less important to explore at the moment.) Or would you declare that state/people controlled militia are contra-constitutional?
Another, related point, is Art 4 Sec 4; wherein the Federal government GUARANTEES the States protection from invasion. Does this invalidate any State-based defense against an invasion, like the National Guard?
Yes and that has f***all to do with the matter at hand. Precedent is used all of the time when the Supreme Court hears cases. Precedent is the "meat" lawyers make a living on.
"Another, related point, is Art 4 Sec 4; wherein the Federal government GUARANTEES the States protection from invasion. Does this invalidate any State-based defense against an invasion, like the National Guard?"
I'll Refer you to the 2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The Constitution by way of the 2nd Amendment gives the States the ability to have a well Regulated Militia for self defense(That was how Militias were formed by States and Towns) So your example would be in error.