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

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

Time for Bill Simon to speak out forcefully on the fundamental issue of Constitutional liberty. Kalifornistan is riding the fast train to fascism.

[bonesmccoy]

I just reviewed the California State Constitution. There is no right to bear arms in the State of California's constitution. This should be a major campaign issue.

[Bigun]

In other words, he's saying that just because the Federal Government doesn't have the power to ban private firearms, because this proscription only applies to the Fed, and since it is "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states", it is reserved for the states to decide.

AH but it IS "prohibited by it to the states" right here:

"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."

[Jeff Head]

If the people give up their arms and their rights to them ... then all of the eloquent talk in the world will be just that ... talk.

Those with the arms will rule.

This fact, along with the grace of God, is why the American people have been their own government for so long. They are armed and the would-be tyrants MUST respect that ... or find a way to do away with it. If we allow them to do this ... if we give it up, we will lose this power and this government.

I, for one, will not give it up.

[texson66]

What do you expect for Kali-phoney-ia? They also believe their
marijuana laws should over rule federal law too!

[Viva Le Dissention]

I like that argument a lot better than the piecemeal approach to incorporation that the Court has taken; at least that position is a consistent one.

That being said, I think the government owes it to the people to protect them from state authority. Much of the Bill of Rights is associated with protections in criminal proceedings--4th, 5th, 6th, 8th.

But at the time the Bill of Rights was written, there certainly wasn't a national police force, like the FBI now. Moreover, how many federal criminal trials are there? A few, to be sure, but that number is dwarfed by the number of state criminal trials. That is especially true during the time in which the Bill of Rights was written.

All that being said, I think all of this means that the power of the constitution must extend to the states, for otherwise, what would have been the purpose of these amendments when they were written? It just seems to make sense to me, plus it smacks of a fundamental issue of "fairness."

That being said, though, I like your position more than the one the Court has chosen to adopt.

[Roscoe]

I just reviewed the California State Constitution. There is no right to bear arms in the State of California's constitution.

There have been efforts over the years to establish such a provision, Senator Mountjoy was involved in the efforts as I recall.

Unfortunately, such efforts were hindered by Constitutional know-nothings who would claim it wasn't needed because of the 2nd Amendment.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Unfortunately, such efforts were hindered by Constitutional know-nothings who would claim it wasn't needed because of the 2nd Amendment.

Heh. I like you, Roscoe.

[Go Gordon]

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

You're wrong. The federal protection is there in the Constitution. Near the end (I don't have my pocket version handy to quote from), it states that all rights not granted by the Feds, then falls to the states or the people. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the feds protect everyone's right to bear arms, just like the right to vote (remember the ruling of the USSC in the Florida mess)

[spunkets]

Do you have a rough idea how much of the Bill of Rights has been incorporated?

[Zon]

the Court feels

Emotion doesn't trump reason.

So we're stuck.

Speak for yourself, slave.

In each person's life internal authority takes precedence over external authority. That some people choose to sacrifice their own authority to external authority is always a net negative/loss to themselves.

[Zon]

In this case, it's that gun ownership can be infringed by the states. I don't like it, but it is the way it is.

And each time they do it they commit a crime. They will be held accountable for their crimes.

[sheltonmac]

"...I think all of this means that the power of the constitution must extend to the states, for otherwise, what would have been the purpose of these amendments when they were written? It just seems to make sense to me, plus it smacks of a fundamental issue of 'fairness.'"

On the other hand, if the U.S. Constitution extends to the states, why bother having state constitutions at all? There was a time when "fairness" was viewed as allowing the people of each state to be free to govern themselves. That all changed in 1865.

There was also a time when each state had its own militia. The state militias were made up of virtually all able-bodied men, many of whom were required to serve a number of years in the militia, and the right to keep and bear arms was a big part of that. Of course, that isn't to say that the right to keep and bears arms should be limited to militias. It was assumed that everyone would have a weapon and would lend their services in the event of an attack.

[Zon]

I'm not a lawyer, but that doesn't change the way things are. States have a right to prevent people from bearing arms. Period.

States have no rights. States have power.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Oh, really? They are falliable, huh? Who decides that?

The Pope?

[Roscoe]

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson

[Squantos]

Article IV
Section. 2.
Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

Artical VI
....Clause 2:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding

Would these parts of the constitution not preclude individual socialist polidiots practicing sedition from such interpetation of individual state laws ? I ask as I do not know for sure.

Stay Safe Ya'll

[Zon]

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was wrong and should have used the word power instead of right. Of course, Jefferson was wrong to own slaves too. "Runaway now little man", the peasant said to the king.

[Ramius]

If the states were not bound by the federal constitution there would then be no need for the states to ratify amendments.

Game... set... match.

[Gig]

Over half of the states STILL have an organized, state-recognized militia: These are usually called State Defense Forces and they mirror your words down to a "T". The volunteers even have to buy their own uniforms and supplies, in many cases.

Too bad these State Defense Forces aren't turned into the force they should be! Many people would gain a whole new perspective on the RKBA!