Do state trump Bill of Rights on firearms?

WorldNetDaily ^

[The Unnamed Chick]

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

In a letter sent earlier this month to David Codrea, co-founder of Citizens of America, a California-based gun-rights organization, Lockyer said that while his duty is to enforce the laws of his state and the nation, "the responsibilities of my office do not permit me to independently interpret the state and federal Constitutions or the statutes written pursuant to those Constitutions."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29009

[jjm2111]

Lockyer is a statist scumbag.

[Jeff Head]

In answwer to your , let me pose another question ...

Did the King?

Same answer.

[GaConfed]

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

In other words this leftist believes in states rights after all.............as long as it fits his agenda of totalitarianism.

[bullseye1911]

I thought Lincoln settled the State's rights issue....bad my...

[jjm2111]

Actually, he doesn't, BTW. Just like a local school in Oklahoma can't violate the church and state provision of the first amendment, Lockyer cannot violate the second.

[jjm2111]

((((( Ping )))))

[itzmygun]

This guy is a threat to all freedom. By his reasoning, the constitution means nothing. He should be removed.

[southern rock]

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Well, if it is an INDIVIDUAL right (as all rights are, both enumerated and unenumerated), then how can the STATE (a collective) regulate and ban it, Bill? You jerk!

[jjm2111]

The Unnamed Chick signed up 2002-09-20.

[ClearCase_guy]

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

Isn't that priceless? Let's shift it around:

The right of individuals to follow their own religion may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to manadate which church the people may attend.

The ACLU will go for that, right?

[Viva Le Dissention]

No, no, this man is absolutely correct. The US Constitution provides no protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

Your state might (and probably does) have a similar provision in its own constitution that protects the right to bear arms, but if it doesn't, or if your state Supreme Court chooses to say the state is within its rights when banning guns, then you're out of luck, barring a entirely new line of thought on this subject by the US Supreme Court.

[jjm2111]

A state can offer MORE protections than the Federal constitution, but it cannot offer LESS.

[Jeff Head]

In answer to your question, let me pose another one and cut to the chase ...

Did the King?

Same answer.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Jim, you're just wrong, I'm sorry.

The Supreme Court has not "incorporated" the 2nd amendment to apply to the states, as it has the 1st, 4th, 5th, parts of the 6th and 7th, etc.

Why do you think your state can deny you the right to a jury trial in traffic court?

[11th Earl of Mar]

If this is allowed to stand, what does it mean for voting rights in the South?

[Jeff Head]

... so, then by your definition, the State could change its constitution and bar freedom of speech, tell people they had to attend a certain church or that they couldn't attend a specific church ... or that all of your property belinged to the state and it could confiscate it at will ... or that there would no longer be trials in that state but that a commission appointed by the governor ... who by the way would no longer be elected ... would pass judgement on all citizens?

I don't think so.

In the end ... it comes don to one question. Will the people suffer it? If they will not, then they must be armed to effectively press that point. Our founders understood this ... tyrants understand this ... we'd best not forget it.

[jjm2111]

Just because the Supreme Court hasn't "incorporated" the second like the others, doesn't mean they are right. The SC avoids the issue. Why? I don't know. But legally a federal protection trumps state regulation. Why the feds ignore the second is beyond me.

[Stat-boy]

Your interpretation of the Constitution is correct as of the early 1800s. By the early 1900s, the Supreme Court "incorporated" most of the Bill of Rights as applying to the states. Articled that I have read seem to say that it is not entirely clear if the second amendment was incorporated. That's all I know; for more info ask a constitutional attorney!!

[jjm2111]

((((( Ping )))))