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

[Jeff Head]

I don't care who "incorporated" what any more than the founders cared what order the King passed down for gun confiscation.

If we allow something like this to stand, we have given up our liberty and our birthright. This tyrant needs to be shown the door.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Uh, Jeff, no. The Supreme Court has incorporated the 1st Amendment as applying to the states. It is a right "fundamental to a well-ordered liberty." States can't infringe upon it.

The 2nd Amendment, however, is an entirely different story. Just for fun, I looked up the CA constitution: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

No provision for the right to bear arms.

By the way, Jeff--check out Barron v. Baltimore. Maryland seized private property without compensating the owner. The Supreme Court upheld it, saying the Constitution didn't apply to the states. That case has since been overruled, as that provision of the Bill of Rights now applies, but not for the 2nd Amendment.

[BenLurkin]

The Unnamed Chick signed up 2002-09-20.

Posting from WorldNetDaily though, and Lockyear really is WAY off base with his dangerous ideations.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Legally, it doesn't. You don't have a leg to stand on if you took this to court, I'm sorry.

Hey, you're talking to a person who thinks that ALL guns laws should be repealed. I think a 14 year old girl should be able to walk into Home Depot and buy a chain-fed machine gun, over the counter, with no papers to sign, no taxes to pay, no identification to show, and no waiting period to pass.

Fact is, though, that ain't the way it is, and we have to recognize the way the law operates. As it is right now, the federal constitution doesn't mean crap on a state level when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I doubt if Bill has ever read that 1939 Miller vs U.S. decision, since it is very clear that the Supremes considered every able-bodied male to be a part of the militia - therefore rendering Mr. Lockyear's argument moot.

[unixfox]

... states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer...

If that's the case then it could also be said that ANY of the amendments could be regulated by the states.

Kalifornia has proven time and time again that the constitution doesn't really mean anything to them, so why should it matter with guns?

Maybe they should regulate free speech as well and tell this idiot to shut his trap !!!

[jjm2111]

Okay, we're on the same page then. You'll agree that is SHOULD though right?

[BenLurkin]

Taking your research as represented:
> The simple answer is that we secure this liberty for ourselves while we still have our guns.
> Not pretty I know but it may be an unfortunate necessity.
> And BTW, you can expect the Fedral government would support the State even though it is the State that is out of control.

[Bigun]

"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 powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

There is your answer!

[BallandPowder]

Powder..Patch..Ball FIRE!

Jim Talent is an ardent supporter of the 2nd ammendment. Help him take back the senate!

To make a contribution to Jim Talent, former Congressman from St. Louis, running against current Senator Jean Carnahan (who was appointed when her dead husband narrowly "won" in 2000 election over John Ashcroft), click on the Link below or mail a check to the address below.

Support Jim Talent!

Jim Talent for Senate
9433 Olive Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63132

[apillar]

If you follow the premise that states can regulate firearms because it is only a "federal" constitutional right then on the same token state could ban religon, free speech, reinstitute slavery etc.

[Jeff Head]

Read my post 21 again ... very carefully.

The King felt he had the power to make such decisions as well. He found he was wrong when attempted against a well armed citizenry.

If these fools continue to press such issues, they will find out the same thing.

Sorry, but that is about as cut to the chase as I can make it. I don't desire it, I do all I can to avoid it ... but if they continue to push, that's where it leads.

[Jeff Head]

The simple answer is that we secure this liberty for ourselves while we still have our guns.

Exactly.

[Dead Corpse]

Article 6, Para 2. "supreme Law of the Land".

Now read the 10th, followed by Sect 2 of the 14th.

These are listed as basic Rights that the Federal government, and all member States, cannot infringe upon. The USSC would destroy Federal Government as it currently exits if they should ever rule the way they should be. The plain language of the Constitution is pretty unambiguous, and quite a bit of pre-New Deal rulings back that up.

Think about it. If government didn't work to increase its workload, lawyer, judges, and most of the federal apperatus would go out of business. Millions out on the streets with no job. Not nearly as much for Congress to do.

To those in power, this would be a dissaster.

[snooker]

yep, states can offer more, but not less. That is unless you are one of these lefty crackpots.

Notice how these same crackpots are using the US Constitution to find protections like abortion rights.

But the best is they always head to the US Constitution when they see a church.

Tribe has put all the 2nd stuff in the latest edition of his book on the Constitution.

The 2nd ammendment says what it says, so says Lawarence Tribe, the lefties guide to the Constitution.

snooker.

[FreeTally]

I don't care who "incorporated" what any more than the founders cared what order the King passed down for gun confiscation.

BIG TIME BUMP!!

The 2nd Amendment says "....the right OF THE PEOPLE..." and mentiones nothing about "Congress" or "The States". Every single individual is "the people" and no level of government is allowed to infringe on our right to bear arms.

[southern rock]

or if your state Supreme Court chooses to say the state is within its rights when banning guns, then you're out of luck,

Sorry, but state outranks the fed, individual outranks the state. Always. This means that states have rights in their relationship with the federal government. They cannot, however, violate individual rights.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Absolutely, SHOULD.

I have great difficulty with the line of cases decided by the Supreme Court in which parts of the Bill of Rights are incorporated but not others. If you want to say that these rights are "fundamental to a well ordered liberty," then fine--all of the rights in the Bill of Rights should be protected by the federal government; as it is, though, the Court feels that some rights are more important than others, and I think that goes against the very purpose of the Bill of Rights.

However, they've chosen to interpret it this way, and we're stuck on it. Problem is that there isn't anyone (that's got the clout or the scratch) that's really willing to challenge this when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. So we're stuck.

[jjm2111]

Well, emerson went to the SC. They chose not to hear it. SCOTUS has been avoiding 2A cases for decades now.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Funny, show me the Supreme Court decision that incorporates the 2nd Amendment.