Does your state include the RKBA in its Constitution?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dirtbos

Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2003
Messages
50
Location
Southern California, surrounded by the enemy.
California does not include the RKBA in its Constitution. Does your state give you that Constitutional guarantee?

If you have relatives in California, give them a call. Get them behind the effort to amend the California Constitution to give Californians that guarantee.

Remember, “As does California, so goes the Nation” (or something to that effect). Every gun owner in the Nation has a stake in this.
 
Georgia does, but explicitly lets the legislature regulate "the manner in which arms are borne". Of course, the antis will twist any technicality to their will. You can carry a gun, but only in proscribed ways such as belt holster.

New York (prior state) quotes the 2nd Amendment practically verbatum (only substituting "cannot" for "shall not") - but only in the Civil Rights law. I asked a state judge what that meant, esp. considering its positioning within the legal structure - she had no idea. The endurance of the basis of NY gun control law, that being possession of a firearm a misdemeanor, indicates the uselessness of the competing and much-ignored RKBA law.
 
Florida does, but says the manner of bearing may be regulated by law. Thus no open carry. It also says that there is a 3 day waiting period on handguns for people without a CCW. Florida has wonderful gun laws otherwise. Class 3 weapons are widely owned and sold here.

A constitutional amendment means nothing if everyone willfully ignores it. Mexico's constitution is just as pro gun as the US one. NYs is no less pro gun than Texas' constitution. Yet a judiciary, executive and legislature pretend it isnt so, and the voters let them get away with it year after year.

Frankly I would focus on winning the easy battles rather than the impossible ones. Kind of like the NAACP fighting a discrimination law in Massechusets rather than one in Alabama. You attack where your enemy is weak, not where he is strong. The CCW revolution started in Florida and spready quickly to the other non-anti states. Other initiatives will start in similar places and perhaps nationally. The south was brought into line on civil rights by the feds. We may have to take a similar route.
 
Nebraska does, but the Courts have decided that the right does not extend to concealed carry and that local governments can infringe however they please.
 
Pennsylvania has one of the strongest RKBA clauses:

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


The courts have been pretty decent in upholding it, too. They struck down a Philadelphia city AWB noting that ~the State Constitution does not say that the right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned, except in Philadelphia.~

~ = approximate quote from memory


If you use the search feature, you'll see that this has been covered in other threads. You can also check state gun laws @ http://www.nraila.org, click on gun laws, and the state you're interested in. State Constitutional provisions are listed.

Finally, the NJ state constitution reads thus:

" 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. "

This is consistent with RKBA, without mentioning it explicitly. No one is surprised, however, that RKBA has suffered so greatly in that state, as the courts feel free to set aside even explicit laws when they prove to be inconvenient to the State.
 
Michigan, Art. I, § 6

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.
 
One thing I just remembered was the whole racial angle to gun control.

Before the racial problems of the 1960s, gun control as we know it today didnt even exist, not even within what we now consider the "traditionally" anti gun areas. CA had RKBA in the constitution and open carry was normal as well, just like AZ or TX. At the federal level, there was zero gun control besides the 34 NFA act, which thanks to inflation, was slowly becoming irrelevant.

Fast forward a few riots, angry speeches and armed marches by the Black Panthers later...

By the late 70s, there was strict gun control on the federal level and in pretty much every city or state with a large urban black population. That and the various welfare programs we all know and love. At some level, it seems government decided that the best way to pacify the urban black population was to disarm it and cripple it with welfare and broken homes. Fatten them up with poisoned cake.

Of course, as a former Black Panther observed (and I paraphrase away the n word), "you cant really take guns away from black people- instead you take them away from everyone." So urban liberals and black "leaders" embraced gun control and welfare, probably for fear of a less predictable negative outcome. Everyone seems to have tacitly agreed that it was a crappy and expensive solution, but far easier to control than arson and gunfire in the streets. Of course, they all have a solid mental block against openly discussing why these measures were really taken.

The question I have is, how large a part of these policies are still grounded in good decision making and how much of it is "practice makes permanent?" Are urban blacks really that much of a threat to civil society? I'm tempted to say no, but I dont live in or near a poor black neighborhood. Then again, my impression from 18 years in NYC was that things were much better in the 90s than in the early 80s in terms of racial relations. There was open hostility in the 70s and 80s but everyone literally got along fine through the 90s. Is there any way to have an honest discussion about this in a way that leads to less gun control and less government dependence?
 
Before the racial problems of the 1960s, gun control as we know it today didnt even exist, not even within what we now consider the "traditionally" anti gun areas.
Click to expand...

So-called "gun control" in the United States always has been, is now, and doubtless will remain 100% racist. It'll be sunny and 85° in Nome on Christmas before you'll ever hear the leftist extremists acknowledge that fact, but it remains a fact.

Are urban blacks really that much of a threat to civil society?
Click to expand...

The perceived threat consists primarily of unmarried, uneducated urban non-white males between the ages of about 15 and 30. Those are the people so-called "gun control" laws are aimed at. Those are the people white people in large urban areas live in terror of. To be sure, the leftist extremists loathe, detest, and despise armed law-abiding American citizens in "fly-over country," but the acute fear is of young non-white males with no education, no responsibility, and no incentive to get up in the morning and go to work.

Lyndon Baines Johnson's "Great Society" chickens have come home to roost.

Curiously, white urban dwellers seem to be largely ignorant of the fact that the vast majority of the predators' victims consists of non-white, non-wealthy people from their own neighborhoods. They're profoundly ignorant of the fact that disarmament laws don't disarm criminals, as well as the further fact that judges appointed by representatives of the Democratic (sic) party are quick to return the predators to the streets on parole and probation, slow to put them out of harm's way in prison.

It's all the fault of the guns. Heaven forbid we should ever try to hold individuals accountable for their own actions!
 
Hawaii....

RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

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. [Ren Const Con 1978 and election Nov 7, 1978]



However, we can't seem to get our duly elected representatives to fully understand this perfectly clear sentence.

migoi
 
The RKBA clause in the Alaska Constitution used to be verbatum of the Second Amendment. Then about 10 or so years ago it was reworded to clarify that that the RKBA was individual right. It's been getting better and better ever since. We actually have even more gun rights than VT.:D
 
Idaho State Constitution

ARTICLE 1, SECTION 11. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. 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 the 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 firearms
by a convicted 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.
Click to expand...

Not the best, but atleast beter than many other states.
 
Here's New Hampshire's:

[Art.] 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.
December l, 1982
 
North Carolina State Constitution, Article I, Section 30: Militia and the right to 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 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 Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/Legislation/constitution/article1.html
 
North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).


:evil:
 
CT
Article 1
SEC. 15.

Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.


G
 
NY never lets breaking the law bother it when it comes to doing what it feels like doing. Sort of like taxing you on stuff you buy out of state or online. Last I looked that would be "interstate commerce", which I was under the impression the fed got to regulate, but that doesn't bother NY...
 
TEXAS Article I, Section 23
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.
 
Alabama

Constitution Of Alabama 1901: Section 26

Right to bear arms.

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
Which is more important? U.S. Constitution or...
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
rabidgoldfish
R
B
  • Locked
Drive to amend California constitution for RKBA!
Replies
8
Views
436
TimRB
T
D
  • Locked
Schwarzenegger has the Power to Secure California Border
Replies
14
Views
872
R.H. Lee
R
jnojr
  • Locked
CA Constitutional amendment - RKBA
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
M1911Owner
M
G
  • Locked
Repugnant State Constitutions & BOR
Replies
3
Views
520
legaleagle_45
L
Back
Top