State constitutions and the right to keep and bear arms.

[hack89]

one thing that is constantly overlooked by the more ardent gun control advocates is the role state constitutions play in protecting rights. Rights granted by the US constitution can be regarded as a minimum standard - the states cannot restrict them but they certainly can expand them. Thus, if their fantasy of a liberal supreme court reinterpreting the 2A was to ever come true, they would still be faced with the issue of state constitutions. With that in mind, here is a good link with state constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms provisions:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

[melm00se]

1. awww...get with the program man

it's only rights that you believe in are the ones that should be protected...ones that you disagree with are subject to any and all restrictions until they get to the point that they are eliminated.

this is a truism regardless of political ideology

[upaloopa]

2. Trash

Trashing to make room for more sensible discussions.

[hack89]

3. Are you arguing that state constitutions are irrelevant?

you are not familiar with the US legal system, are you?

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. Too funny, upa's response.

[upaloopa]

11. When it comes to guns you are right

I don't don't give a shit nor do most folks here

[Lizzie Poppet]

13. For someone who doesn't "give a shit" and claimed they were gonna trash the thread...

...you sure are posting a lot.

[upaloopa]

20. So are you. I doubt any gunner here could not let himself be the last word.

[Lizzie Poppet]

24. I didn't claim to be trashing the thread or to not give a shit.

Let me know if you need the difference explained to you.

[upaloopa]

8. I'm saying gunner shit is a waste of time

on this board

[hack89]

10. Yet you seem to reveal in it, based on the frequency you show up in gun threads.

you seem a little conflicted.

[upaloopa]

19. So I am reading down the list of OPs and

there is one about Obama and one about space launches and one about helping a bartender with his dog then one about the best shotgun for home defense.
You obviously don't have a clue to how fucked up that is so I'll remind you from time to time.

[hack89]

21. I can certainly understand your frustration

Perhaps oneday Skinner will embrace your purity purge. Have you considered whining more in ATA?

[upaloopa]

22. Purity purge?

Take a general group of folks off the street. Any age, any sex, any income level mix them together. Say about 25 to 50 people. Ask them how interested they are in Obama or space travel or cute stories about bartenders and their dogs and how concerned they are that they have the most effective shotgun for home defense. You think then you might get some clue how fucked up gunner talk is to normal people?

[hack89]

23. Yet you seem attracted to it

Fine, all are welcomed here.

[hack89]

14. Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 126 posts in the last 90 days (17% of total posts) nt

[Eleanors38]

27. Well, there's Bansalot.

[jimmy the one]

4. thanks for proving our points (a gc advocate)

hack: Thus, if their fantasy of a liberal supreme court reinterpreting the 2A was to ever come true, they would still be faced with the issue of state constitutions. With that in mind, here is a good link with state constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms provisions:

Open mouth, insert foot:

Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense 1868
1836:.. free white men shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."

Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property .. shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons 1876

Florida: 1838: ..free white men shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
(ALTERED): 1868: "The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State."
1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne."

Hawaii: 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. 1959

Kentucky: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons (enacted 1891).

Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person 1974

Mississippi: .. right of every ci ..but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons 1890.

Missouri: .. right of every citizen to keep .. ; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. 1945

Montana: right of any person .. nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. 1889

New Mex: 1912: The people... nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."

North Carolina: 1971, 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; .. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing ar..
1868: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the {rkbasnbi};
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."

Oklahoma: 1907 The right of a .. but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime 1870
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence."

Texas: Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms

[hack89]

5. Everyone understands that guns can be regulated - even Scalia is with you on that

If the 2A disappears, each state will regulate guns as they see fit. Which means you would then have to fight your battle state by state. My only point.

[jimmy the one]

15. liberal fantasy

hack: If the 2A disappears, each state will regulate guns as they see fit. Which means you would then have to fight your battle state by state. My only point

Your 'only point'? then you're changing the goalposts, because this is what you wrote in your OP:

hack OP: Rights granted by the US constitution can be regarded as a minimum standard - the states cannot restrict them but they certainly can expand them. Thus, if their fantasy of a liberal supreme court reinterpreting the 2A was to ever come true, they would still be faced with the issue of state constitutions.

Tell me then, how do the 'common defence' &/or 'carrying concealed prohibitions' from the state constitutions I posted, hinder any argument that we guncontrol advocates could make to overturn the heller or McDonald pro gun decisions, by a future liberal supreme court?

hack: Everyone understands that guns can be regulated - even Scalia is with you on that

Which has nowt to do with your contention that: ..'if their fantasy of a liberal supreme court reinterpreting the 2A was to ever come true, they would still be faced with the issue of state constitutions.'

More Gun Logic, More Lies of Logic.

[hack89]

16. You are confused as usual

I am not saying that the state constitutions hinder any attempts to overturn Heller. I am saying that once Heller goes away, each state can regulate guns as they see fit. And considering that Heller pretty much says that already with one exception, why do you think that overturning Heller will make that much of a difference?

The reason you can't pass the gun control you want is political, not legal. Lets remember that no AWB has ever been declared unconstitutional. Heller and the supreme court are not the obstacle in your way.

[hack89]

6. The state prohibitions on concealed carry have been rendered moot by Heller and Peruta

remember, that the states cannot restrict rights defined by the Supreme Court. Those are rights every American has. States, can however provide more expansive rights.

[jimmy the one]

17. confused? moi? nein, Ihnen.

hack: You are confused as usual .... I am not saying that the state constitutions hinder any attempts to overturn Heller. I am saying that once Heller goes away {if repealed}, each state can regulate guns as they see fit.

Explain to me how what you say above comports with what you said in post 6, below:

hack: The state prohibitions on concealed carry have been rendered moot by Heller and Peruta

If states could subsequently regulate guns as they see fit accd'g to your first contention, how can the state prohibitions have been rendered moot by recent pro gun court decisions?
.. what happens today is of secondary importance imo, for the state constitutional prohibitions I posted prove beyond a doubt how the earlier states viewed the 2nd amendment, or else they would not have tried to sidestep a federal right to bear arms.
.. states could then prohibit carrying concealed, or limit rkba to common defense, & it was not viewed as any infringement on any rkba. That today's modern rightwing political bozo's on the supreme court have 'decided' that James Madison intended an individual right, is immaterial junk science.

The reason you can't pass the gun control you want is political, not legal.. Heller and the supreme court are not the obstacle in your way.

True on your first part - it's political & it's apparent you support the republican position.
False on your tailing, heller & the supreme court are indeed obstacles in the way.

[hack89]

18. Sure, if Heller went away then states could regulate CCW

but since we got to our present situation concerning CCW primarily through legislation at the state level and not through court rulings, I am not concerned.

If Heller went away tomorrow, the effect on gun control would be small.

What is it about Heller that is stopping you? Unless all you wish to do is ban handguns in private homes, Heller does not stop you from anything. You could pass an AWB. You could pass registration. You could impose training and storage requirements. You could pass a high capacity magazine ban. You can legally do all that right now. So why is Heller an obstacle.?

[msongs]

9. including the right to make bearing arms "well regulated" nt

[hack89]

12. Even Scalia thinks guns can be regulated.

the fight over gun control, with certain exceptions, is a political issue not a legal one.

The only defined right coming out of Heller is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense. Peruta has extended that right outside the home, which is why every state will soon be shall issue concealed carry. But beyond that, anything is fair game - no AWB, for example, has ever been declared unconstitutional.

[Straw Man]

25. Well-regulated?

Well, to get a pistol permit in New York, one needs a criminal and mental health background check and four character references. There's also an interview with the issuing judge. Each handgun purchase requires a separate permit, signed by a judge. Is that "well-regulated" enough for you? If not, what would you add and why?

[Packerowner740]

26. Just wait till you get the

"You don't know what well regulated really means" argument. That's what I always see from the pro gun crowd.

[Eleanors38]

28. So "well-regulated" means knowing how to use suitable arms...

along with training standards by democratically-elected state officers? I agree.

States DO have the power to regulate the manner of carry, too: Either open or concealed or both, fits right into the right to keep and Bear arms. We have much we agree on.

I just hope we don't revert to the ways of Jim (large, raucous black bird) days when laws and provisions were/are written to keep certain races and ethnicities from Bearing arms. Keeping them seems well established, you would agree?