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

[inquest]

They meant that in the event of a conflict between state law and the Constitution, the Constitution prevails. But in order for a such a conflict to occur, the Constitution would actually have to apply to the situation that the state law applies to. If a particular provision of the Constitution only applies to the federal government to begin with, then there's no way a state law would conflict with that.

[Squantos]

Seems the Bullsh*t filter on FR is broke again.......

Stay Safe !

[Zon]

It seems you're always available to demonstrate that fact.

[Roscoe]

It seems you're always available to demonstrate that fact.

That's why you find my sources and cites so upsetting.

[Zon]

As I said in post 135, "You're only the second person on the Internet that I've come across that doesn't have an original thought of their own."

[sneakypete]

We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson

You are trying to link a totally out of context from Jefferson with gun control,and trying to spin it into Jefferson being in favor of it? Or do I have you wrong,and you are using this to claim we (citizens) have the right to expell the gun controllers from America?

[Joe Brower]

Yo', VLD -- Wrong again. SCOTUS is not the infallible be-all and end-all you seem to think, and they have NOT ruled on the 2A in any such way. Where on earth do you get your (dis)information, praytell?

You need to do your homework, and until then, you are the weakest link. Goodbye.

[Travis McGee]

Big time.

[Roscoe]

You are trying to link a totally out of context from Jefferson with gun control,and trying to spin it into Jefferson being in favor of it?

No, just showing the absurdity of your baseless position that nations and societies have no right.

[spunkets]

A right is a claim made by an individual, the only way a collection of individuals can claim a right is if the individuals that make up the group claim it and delegate the claim and sovereignty of that right to some representative of the group. The group here is called a nation, but in truth size is irrelevant. What is important to note is that the ultimate owner and sovereign of right is the individual.

Jefferson held that certain of these rights are inalienable. Those are the rights the people would not give up. The preservation of those rights, of which Jefferson claimed are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is what motivates folks to construct a form of govm't. The protection of these rights are also what gives justification to the power exerted to form that govm't and for the govm't to claim just consent.

The authoritarian forms I mentioned deny inalienable rights. Right in those forms amounts to a claims made by certain despots that rule by the powers of force and deciet, not consent. The blessings of Liberty and Freedom itself are restricted to the rulers. The seat and the source of power in those forms is the govm't not the people. They may have a choice in who becomes a figure head, but they have no choice to modify the despotic nature of govm't imposed upon them.

Jefferson didn't agree that, "The only thing essential is, the will of the nation", to form a just govm't. The quote taken as is, simply reflects the truth of the fundamental fact that govm't is a rule of force. The quote doesn't address the issues of what is right, just, or proper. As is it's a description of mob rule.

[Roscoe]

Yes, I know. Ignorance hates facts, sources and cites.

[Travis McGee]

Sadly, there is a percentage of any population who love the taste of jackboot leather, crave the snap of a riding crop across their face or buttocks, and become aroused at the sight and sound of goose stepping stormtroopers.

[JackIV]

You do NOT have the rights you think you have!!!

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to all of the states. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights was applicable ONLY to the Federal government.

HOWEVER, that is being slowly eroded by the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, most people think that they have a right to TRIAL BY JURY in all criminal cases, as stated in the Constitution (Article III, Section 2, Clause 1) AND the 6th Amendment (of the "Bill of Rights"). Right?

Well, if you think that, you would be wrong!

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that people do NOT necessarily have the right to a trial by jury in all criminal cases -- only for "serious" cases (i.e., those in which the sentence for each crime is at least 6 months in prison). Thus, if you are charged with 20 "petty" crimes (each carrying a potential sentence of only 5 months in prison, but which could add up to 100 months -over 8 years-) in prison), you do NOT have the right to a trial by jury.

See: 1.) Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 US 145 (1968)
2.) Baldwin v. New York, 399 US 66 (1970)

No kidding!!

[Roscoe]

A right is a claim made by an individual, the only way a collection of individuals can claim a right is if the individuals that make up the group claim it and delegate the claim and sovereignty of that right to some representative of the group.

"Whosoever, therefore, out of a state of Nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends for which they unite into society to the majority of the community, unless they expressly agreed in any number greater than the majority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is, or needs be, between the individuals that enter into or make up a commonwealth. And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world." -- John Locke

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

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

It can't. If you insist on a jury trial the State must oblige. But the State cam carge a pretty large court fee for such a trial. There was such a case once when I was on jury duty. I wasn't on the jury but I heard about it. The defendant needed to win it so that he could use the desision to win a large civil suit. Seems his accident caused some extreme damage to a building, fire I think, that his insurance didn't cover. Most of us do not chose to because it's not worth the trouble.

[wardaddy]

Young, dumb, and full of DUNG

The Supreme Politburo has spoken....and That's All There Is To It....End of Story....LOL

MY REPLY:

[Roscoe]

The 14th Amendment made the Bill of Rights applicable to all of the states.

The gradual judicial incorporation has been partial and selective.

[Zon]

A parrot has no original thought of his own

[Roscoe]

"A parrot has no original thought of his own",
Zon squawked.

[harpseal]

For historical reference the Supreme Court of the German Republic found every action of Chancellor Hitler to be totally within the Constitution. Likewise the Soviet Constitution was never violated by Stalin at least according to its court system.

In the final analysis we make our personal decisions based upon our values and what we instinctively know is right.

Stray well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown