[suijurisfreeman]

On this thread I will post what all 50 State's Bill of Rights have to say about your 'right' to keep and bear arms. I have located and printed off the internet 49 of the 50 State's Bill of Rights, very interesting reading to say the least! I'm still looking for the Massacusetts Bill of Rights.

ALABAMA, Article I, Section 26: "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

ALASKA, Section 1.19: "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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."

ARIZONA, Article II, Section 26: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."

ARKANSAS, Article II, Section 21: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense."

CALIFORNIA, I found nothing listed in California's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.

COLORADO, Article II, Section 13: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

CONNECTICUT, Article I, Section 15: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."

DELAWARE, Article I, Section 20: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use."

FLORDIA, Article I, Section 8 (a): "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."

GEORGIA, Section 1, Paragraph VIII: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."

HAWAII, Article I, Section 17: "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."

IDAHO, Article I, Section 11: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firarms by a convicte felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."

ILLINOIS, Article I, Section 22: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

INDIANA, Article I, Section 32: "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

IOWA, I found nothing listed in Iowa's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.

KANSAS, Section 4: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

KENTUCKY, Section 1, No. 7: "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."

LOUISIANA, Article I, Section 11: "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."

MAINE, Article I, Section 16: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."

MARYLAND, Article 28: "That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defence of a free Government."

MASSACHUSETTS, Still looking for this one!

MICHIGAN, Article I, Section 6: "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."

MINNESOTA, I found nothing listed in Minnesota's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms

MISSISSIPPI, Article 3, Section 12: "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."

to be continued

[Jeff White]

Illinois State Constitution clearly permits anything in the way of gun control. That insidious Subject to the Police Power wording pretty much gives the state the right to do anything it pleases.

Jeff

[suijurisfreeman]

Jeff White,
That's my whole point of posting all the State's Bill of Rights sections reagarding 'the right to bear arms'! There are many States that I would never own property in, just because of this very fact! One of the main reasons that I bought property in Kentucky was because of Kentucky's Bill of Rights, I'm telling you it is very effective in protecting my natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable rights - including my right of self-defense! I've printed off 49 of the 50 States entire Bill of Rights, you ought to read all of them, it's an eye opener believe you me!

[PeteyPete]

NJ's got nothing in the way of guns or militia rights in it's constitution, which is surprising since it was the third of the original thirteen states to ratify the Constitution.

Not that any of this matters since the Federal Bill of Rights supersedes a state's Constitution....god, i hate NJ:banghead:

[Telperion]

ARKANSAS, Article II, Section 21: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense."

Please tell me they've reworded that. :uhoh:

Regarding Massachusetts, from packing.org (http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/massachusetts):

Massachusetts State Constitution
Declaration of Rights
Part I
Article XVII:
The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense. And as, in the time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

[labgrade]

"COLORADO, Article II, Section 13: "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."

But that doesn't keep them from ruling regards the "absolute right of a person to keep and bear .... " in the interest of the state, mind you.

Please do a statute search including refs to rulings where "interest of the state" precludes most of any rights delineated in most any state bill of rights. (google = worst case, at least provides substantial links to astute statute searchings)

Mostly, you'll find that you have no rights as lited, but that The State has overriding "powers" due to to the ""overriding public safety clause."

Sucks, bummer, & a lie.

[Triad]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000100-002300.html

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 23 - RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
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, with a view to prevent crime.

[suijurisfreeman]

pipsqueak,
I didn't write it, the people of Arkansas did! I am not a racist, we are all equally human! Thanks for the Massachusetts link!

[suijurisfreeman]

labgrade,

BUT, that's why I bought property in Kentucky! Kentucky's Bill of Rights, Section 26: "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void."

I guess I'm just ignorant enough to believe precisely what that states, and I actually live it everyday!

A brief quote from Samuel Adams: "It is the greatest absurdity to suppose it (would be) in the power on one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which are life, liberty, and property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." (Qouted in Wells, Life of Samuel Adams, 1:504)

A brief quote from James Otis: "these rights were inherent and inalienable; that they could never be surrendered or alienated, but by idiots or madmen, and all the acts of idiots and lunatics were void, and not obligatory, by all the laws of God and man." (James Otis, In Opposition to Writs of Assistance, The World's Famous Orations, Vol. 1, page 32.)

[Coronach]

Don't recall the exact text off-hand, but the Ohio state constitution clearly states that citizens in the state of Ohio have the right to bear arms for their defense. Its pretty clearly worded and blunt.

Mike

[priv8ter]

Section 24 of our state Constitution:

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this SECTION shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

So, no private armies :( :(

We even have a definition of Militia here:

The militia of the state of Washington shall consist of all able bodied citizens of the United States and all other able bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing within this state, who shall be more than eighteen years of age, and shall include all persons who are members of the national guard and the state guard, and said militia shall be divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

Which means all of us! Yay...but you still can't buy Class III weapons for militia use in Washington...thank goodness for Oregon and Idaho.

greg

[labgrade]

suijurisfreeman,

I can't argue your point re "buying into Kentuky," but I'd do that state staute search to just take a peek into how that may have been bastardized into that "overriding interst of the state"-thing. You may be quite surprised - & unfavorably so. Just a guess - it's certainly happened here (CO). Do a comprehesive download of statutes & then a EDIT/SEARCH on the results for unfavorable phrases - be compreehesive & (sorry to say) dismayed.

& regardless of how the "rights" were listed (point taken, Mike & others), they have been trashed by subsequent court rulings.

Fer instance, CO has it's (above posted) "2nd amend" in it's bill of rights - seems pretty clear.

However, we are currently, after 2X legislative declarations/current law regards a preemptive status, involved with several municipalities deciding that they can prevent open carry through "home rule."

In essence, we have a more restrictive CCW law in effect & now several cities are stating that we can't carry openly because of the simple fact that they say so.

Whether or no, in the meantime, you will be arrested & charged with nothing less than "making the sheep bleat" due to statutes which allow for "scaring idiots."

& during all this, we have "pro-2nd cops" who will still enforce all this nonsense - you & I may get to go to jail & pay a legal-hack ~$2K to "get off" from exercizing our "granted right."

But I digress, no?

Wonder why I & similars are so disgruntled with The Process .... ?

[suijurisfreeman]

labgrade,

I've actually lived the past ten years exercising my rights! I haven't been arrested since September of 1995. I was stopped at a Kentucky State Police roadblock on May 22, 2002, ticketed for no 'operator's license', but was 'allowed' to travel away, I filed my 'legal paperwork', went and sat in the courtroom on June 6, 2002, after almost 3 hours I got up and walked out. No warrant was issued for 'failure to appear', in fact Judge Ropp removed 'my file' from the clerk's office! This file is a matter of public record, but the judge removed it, I can only guess that he didn't want anyone else to see what I filed with his court! Absolutely nothing appeared in the court section of the local newspaper about 'my case', I called the newspaper they said that there was nothing in the court record about me or 'my case'! Humm?

I had a running battle for over 3 years in Hillsdale County, Michigan back in 1994-97! After September of 1995 they just quite arresting me, Judge Donald L. Sanderson actually ordered me to stay out of his court! I've got court transcripts, tape recordings, witnesses, TV footage, and newspaper articles to prove all of this, it's not just some flight of fancy!

[labgrade]

& to just add a bit of flavor ...

The Republican Sheriff (who I laid out signs for his election & donated money to) is happily adding all of his CCW permitees to a criminal listing - we're laid on the same "NCIC"-listing available to all cops as "inadvisable" = rapists, murders, all felony-folk .... we're all on the same damnable list! &this from a Republican! & a "Pro-Gun!" (how can I be more outraged!?)

Yup. But don't be too concerned. We're all to be removed from The List (yeah right) by 2007 ....

Totally screwed we are.

& this with a [I]"The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."[/]

'Course, anyone with any sense will say that,"Well, that's just the way it need be to to protect the public safety."

But. Are not we those who have gone through the process to "prove" that we are law-abiding & some of the most trustworthy?

I'm Legislative & Governmental Affairs Director for Colorado Second Amendment Sisters & still have yet to rceive a reply from Our Sheriff regards this latest.

Hmmmm & :barf:

[suijurisfreeman]

Ahh, let's see now where was I before all that posting last night?

MISSOURI, Article I, Section 23: "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned, but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."

MONTANA, Article II, Section 12: "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."

NEBRASKA, I found nothing listed in Nebraska's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.

NEVADA, Article I, Section 11: "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."

NEW JERSEY, I found nothing listed in New Jersey's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.

NEW HAMPSHIRE, I found nothing listed in New Hampshire's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.

NEW MEXICO, Article II, Section 6: "No law shall adbridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."

NEW YORK, I found nothing listed in New York's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.

NORTH CAROLINA, Article I, Section 30: "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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Asembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."

NORTH DAKOTA, I found nothing listed in North Dakota's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.

OHIO, Article I, Section 4: "The people have the right to bear arms for their defence and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."

[geekWithA.45]

New Jersey Constitution Article I, [1.]

All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and *unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

*Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred

-----------------------------------------------
While the word ARMS isn't mentioned, I believe that it's strongly implied, because they are the appropriate means with which one can


"enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness."

To suggest that arms are irrelevant to that purpose is disingenious to the extreme.

But that's what we've got.

Essentially, the (corrupt IMO) NJ courts, allegedly Liberties guardian and the people's backstop have rolled over long ago, and left us hanging.

It's a case study of "when democracy fails", as NJ freedom sputters feebly into the future.

[suijurisfreeman]

Back to posting the various State's Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms.

OKLAHOMA, Article II, Section II-26: "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person. or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."

OREGON, Section 27: "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."

PENNSYLVANIA, Article I, Section 21: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

RHODE ISLAND, Article I, Section 22: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

SOUTH CAROLINA, Article I, section 20: "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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall alwasys be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in a manner prescribed by law."

SOUTH DAKOTA, Article VI, Section 24: "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied."

TENNESSEE, Article I, Section 26: "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense; but the legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

[TheLastBoyScout]

PENNSYLVANIA, Article I, Section 21: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."


How How PA!

[suijurisfreeman]

The Last BoyScout,

Pennsylvania is one of the few State's Bill of Rights that makes it cyrstal clear as to what the right to bear arms means! :D

Right on Pennsylvania!

Nevertheless I'd be willing to bet that there are 'statutes' in that State that attempt to regulate weapons! Read my lips, SHALL (oops, gotta keep it toned down) not be questioned!!

I wonder if I could figure out some way to make my font really small, it would be whispering? :confused:

[suijurisfreeman]

better get this project finished before the axe falls.

TEXAS, Article I, Section 23: "Every citizen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself of the State; but the Legislature shall have the power by law to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."

UTAH, Article I, Section6: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the Legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."

VERMONT, Article 16: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dongerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

VIRGINIA, Article I, Section 13: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

WEST VIRGINIA, I found nothing listed in West Virginia's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.

WISCONSIN, I found nothing listed in Wisconsin's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.

WASHINGTON, Article I, Section 24: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

WYOMING, Article I, Section 24: "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied."

[Keith]

One of the main reasons that I bought property in Kentucky was because of Kentucky's Bill of Rights,

I'm confused... The Kentucky excerpt you posted clearly gives the general assembly the right to enact gun control legislation! KENTUCKY, Section 1, No. 7: "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."

Contrast that with ALASKA, Section 1.19: "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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."

A right that can be withdrawn at any time is not a "right", it's a boon granted to the peasants by their political masters.

Keith

[suijurisfreeman]

Keith,

While it's true that Alaska's Bill of Rights makes absolutely no restrictions on the people's right to bear arms and that Kentucky's Bill of Rights grants the General Assembly the power to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons that's not the whole story!

When you read all of Kentucky's Bill of Rights, especially Section 2: "Absolute and arbitrary power over the lives, liberty and property of freemen exists nowhere in a republic, not even in the largest majority." Do you see what's being said here?

And Section 26: "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void." There is only one other State Constitution that makes this statement, do you see what's being said here?

These two section make Kentucky's Bill of Rights very effective in protecting my natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable rights! Over all I believe that Kentucky's Bill of Rights is superior for my purposes.

I hope this answers your question.

[Monkeyleg]

Here's Wisconsin's:

WISCONSIN CONSTITUTION
Article I, §25
______ Right to keep and bear arms.__ Section 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.

Of course the state supreme court, in two cases challenging the ban on concealed carry, ruled that "lawful purpose" can be subject to state police powers. :(

[labgrade]

Fron the various states' pro-second language to what the founders laid down, can any argue what was intended?

But, we get the "funny" rulings from legalese hacks, yada.

Can any argue that it is still as was written & uintended whenso?

[TearsOfRage]

NEW HAMPSHIRE, I found nothing listed in New Hampshire's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms.


:confused:

http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/billofrights.html

2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.]. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

I find this section to be rather interesting as well:

10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

[suijurisfreeman]

TearsOfRage,

I saw that when I printed off all 50 States' Bill of Rights, very interesting! In fact I think everyone should printed off and read all 50 States' Bill of Rights, it's an eye opener!

[tac17]

We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void." There is only one other State Constitution that makes this statement, do you see what's being said here?

I know that this is what Alabama's Constitution has this to say about it.


Sec. 4 That no law shall ever be passed to curtail or restrain the liberty of speech or of the press; and any person may speak, write, and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. And, to guard against any encroachments on the rights herein retained, we declare that everything in this Declaration of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate.

Is Alabama the other state that you were refering to suijurisfreeman, or is there another one?

[suijurisfreeman]

tac17,
I'd have to go back thru all 50 State's Bill of Rights to be certain, but yes I think that Alabama is the only other State to include this statement in their Bill of Rights. To me this is a very powerful statement! The way in which Kentucky's Bill of Rights is written, overall, is one of the reasons that I bought property there 4 years ago, it has been very effective in the defense of my natural, absolute, inherent and inalienable rights!

Freedom is contagious, knowledge is the source of infection! Infect knowledge!

[ShaiVong]

Short and sweet:

"Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."

Wow. I might actually consider STAYING here now :eek:

Unfortunately, thats just about the only thing this state has going for it. :rolleyes:

Question: Since State law trumps federal law (right?), and my Maine State Constitution says that my right to bear arms shall never be questioned, how am I legally bound to obey the NFA and AWBs?

[Waitone]

Seems I remember the NRA-ILA group published a spreadsheet which ID's if each state has a RKBA provision.

I also remember the states that contain no specific provision of RKBA incluce CA, IL,NY, NJ, MD, and MA. Interesting corrolation between constitutional protection and draconian anti-gun laws.

[suijurisfreeman]

After reviewing the 30 posts and 487 views for this thread I can't help but wonder, are the various State's Bill of Rights sections on the right to keep and bear arms actually meant to be taken literally? Do they actually mean what they say, say what they mean? If no lawful authority was delegated by the people in those BoR's then can the various State Legislatures pass any law that is Constitutional if that law attempts to regulate the RKBA's? What is the order of superiority when it comes to 'the rule of law'? I rank them as: (1) Bill of Rights (2) Constitution (3) Statutes (4) Precedents, Judicial decisions (5) Regulations. Numbers 2, 3, 4, 5 cannot lawfully over ride Number 1, The Bill of Rights - the people's natural, inherent and inalienable rights!

The right of self-defense is probably the most fundamenatal right of a free Human Being!

[Blain]

Doesn't the bill of rights trump whatever each state constitution says as all states had to sign on to and agree with it? The 10th amendment gives the states power to decide things which are NOT listed in the constitution/BoR, so how can the states construct their own versions of the 2nd Amendment?

I mean if they succeeded that would be one thing, but if they are still a member of the confederation they have to abide by the BoR, because in a republic some rights can never be infringed.

[tac17]

After reviewing the 30 posts and 487 views for this thread I can't help but wonder, are the various State's Bill of Rights sections on the right to keep and bear arms actually meant to be taken literally? Do they actually mean what they say, say what they mean?

I do believe that in my state, Alabama, they are actually meant to be taken literally. The Constitution of Alabama is downright militant is some sections such as.
Sec. 2 That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.
That would imply to me that the populace would need to be armed in order to affect the change on the level it suggests. Another nasty section is,
Sec. 35 That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.
The tone of the document has always lead me to believe that they were rather serious about the sections that were included. Whether they are taken literally today might be another matter. As to intent, I think they meant and intented them to be literal at the time of writing.

[tac17]

Doesn't the bill of rights trump whatever each state constitution says as all states had to sign on to and agree with it? The 10th amendment gives the states power to decide things which are NOT listed in the constitution/BoR, so how can the states construct their own versions of the 2nd Amendment?
There states have the power to safeguard any rights that they see fit as long as it doesn't interfere with any of the rights listed in the BoR. The states merely double insulate the rights that are already set forth in the BoR.
The states are individual bodies that have agreed to play together by a certain set of rules in the form of the U.S. Constitution. If your states constitution protects a right, free speech for instance, even if the protection of that right goes away at the federal level you are still protected at the state level. The state constitutions act as another check against a run away federal government. If the federal clause that protects free speech was removed the government would still be powerless to prosecute an individual for a crime of speech if he lived in a state that protected that right. I have a lot of doubts if it would work that way in this day and age, but that was the plan anyway.

[Graystar]

NEW YORK, I found nothing listed in New York's Bill of Rights regarding the right to bear arms. It's in the Civil Rights statutes, Article 2 Section 4:

"Right to keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to
keep and bear arms cannot be infringed."

Not that it means anything :rolleyes:

[jimpeel]

Can any argue that it is still as was written & uintended whenso?
Hey, Lab, let's keep it in English, eh?:neener:

[Mark Tyson]

No, no all of you are wrong! These clauses merely apply to state militias! They are forbidding the state governments from disarming . . . their own militias. Yes! That's it . . .

[ShaiVong]

I'm serious about my question up there; my state constitution says that my right to bear arms (nothing about collapseable stocks or select fire) shall not be questioned.

Doesnt the AWB and NFA act question my right by limiting my bounds to bear arms?

Obviously if I altered my AR-15 to be select fire, the BATF would nail me to a stake, but doesnt this violate my constitutional rights? Why must I obey laws that directly go against my federal and state BoR?

It makes you wonder; They have already passed laws that are blatently un-constitutional. Do you think they would even twitch when it comes to passing a broad band?

If even 1/4 of the Gov was sane, they would say "We can't make this a Law; because it violates the US BoR, even if it passes". Do you think they would? I'm not holding my breath.:barf:

[Sergeant Bob]

ShaiVongObviously if I altered my AR-15 to be select fire, the BATF would nail me to a stake, but doesnt this violate my constitutional rights? Why must I obey laws that directly go against my federal and state BoR?

Because you'd be thrown into a deep dark hole somewhere for standing up for your rights, and alot of the so-called "From My Cold Dead Hands" crowd would just say you were a kook and deserve whatever you get for not complying with those unconstitutional laws.:uhoh:

[ShaiVong]

Because you'd be thrown into a deep dark hole somewhere for standing up for your rights, and alot of the so-called "From My Cold Dead Hands" crowd would just say you were a kook and deserve whatever you get for not complying with those unconstitutional laws.

People make me ill. There is a 'patriot' act which some people think infringe upon our right to be kept safe from unlawfull search and seizure, and a lot of people are freaking out about that; by and large the same people who are shouting for more infringments upon the second ammendment.

How much of a hissy fit would the media throw if the right to free speech was to be questioned? What if a BATFesque organization was created to O.K. all news broadcasts, to make sure it wasnt too 'dangerous' for the public to hear?

Funny how hypocritical people can be. :banghead:

[jimpeel]

It all has to do with the fact that their ox has yet to be gored. Those who approve of government actions that are only harming persons external to their sphere of influence rarely change their minds until they are affected by what they once eagerly approved of. Then they squeal like a pig and make protestations like "Why didn't anyone do something?"

I have found that the best, and surest, way to lose my own rights and freedoms is to gleefully celebrate the abrogation of the rights and freedoms of others.

[AZRickD]

The Camel's Nose: ARIZONA, Article II, Section 26: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."Our Thugs In Black Robes ruled in one case (was it State v. Dano?) that since Arizona's Constitution had one *specific* exclusion to RKBA mentioned in the text, that being disallowing "an armed body of men," it then also allowed all sorts of regulations as *not* mentioned in the text.

Do they think we are _that_ stupid?

Rick

[ShaiVong]

Do they think we are _that_ stupid?

I think that some do, but the scary ones are those who know what their doing, and do it anyway. Thats evil. :mad:

[Mark Tyson]

They don't stick up for the 2nd amendment because they don't agree with it. There's too many people out there who will not stand up for the rights they don't care about. That's why we have to stick up for everyone's rights - even people we want nothing to do with.