Where do they get the power?

[Owen Sparks]

Mao said that all power comes from the barrel of a gun.

 

[Neverwinter]

Mao said that all power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Why is it so hard for murderers to get people to renounce Christianity at the barrel of a gun? Ideas are where the power is.

 

[Bubba613]

So the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. States have the right to pass laws about things not covered in the Constitution. So where do the states get the right to pass laws about things covered in the Constitution, such as Gun Control bills. If the Second Amendment is part of the supreme law of the land, where do the States get the power to pass more restrictive laws on guns?

Which states are in violation of the 2A? None as far as I know, as none have a total ban on handguns.

 

[usmcpoolee]

Which states are in violation of the 2A? None as far as I know, as none have a total ban on handguns.

Any State that puts any restrictions on any arms is in violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[hugh damright]

Any State that puts any restrictions on any arms is in violation of the Second Amendment.

No, that's simply not the way of it. The Second Amendment wasn't intended to bind the States, and while the 14th Amendment has been construed so as to provide federal protection of some fundamental RKBA, the States still have gun control powers.

 

[alsaqr]

If the Second Amendment is part of the supreme law of the land, where do the States get the power to pass more restrictive laws on guns?

The Second Amendment is not the supreme law of the land until SCOTUS says so: In its decision, SCOTUS tap danced around that issue. States get the right to pass draconian anti-gun laws from the same place our congress critters in DC get that right: They just do it.

Problem is that most gun owners do not value their Second Amendment rights. Gunowners get wrapped around the axle with Mickey Mouse issues not related to our precious Second Amendment rights. Gun owners often vote for an anti-gunners because the staunch pro-gunner opponent belongs to the wrong political party or the pro-gunner voted for something not related to guns that the voter is opposed to.

i could care less that the pro-gun candidate is a fire breathing conservative preacher or a liberal lesbian Wiccan who had three abortions.

 

[Cyborg]

alsaqr wrote:

The Second Amendment is not the supreme law of the land until SCOTUS says so

Yessir!! Spot. dead center on target!!

In the real world (I am talking about fact vs theory) nothing is illegal unless you are caught AND successfully prosecuted. In the same way, nothing is unconstitutional until and unless a majority of sitting justices of the U.S. Supreme Court SAY it is. We are never more than a heartbeat away from losing our fundamental rights and freedoms. Should Chief Justice Roberts or Associate Justices Thomas, Alito or Scalia leave office while Barak Hussein Obama is in office, any replacement will almost certainly be of similar stripe to Associate Justices Sotomeyor and Kagan. That would give the "Progressives" a majority and no right or freedom would be safe.

While I cannot believe that the Founders intended it this way, our system has evolved to where we are now. SCOTUS determines what is and is not constitutional. If a majority of justices say something is constitutional - or simply dodge the issue by refusing to hear the case (as they have been doing with the Obama citizenship issue) - then it IS!

Be afraid. More, be vigilant - and be prepared!

 

[brickeyee]

And SCOTUS has applied the second o the states through th e14th in the Chicago decision.

Now an exploration of the limits of the second is underway.

It is going to take a lot of time, money, and court cases to establish the limits, just as it has for the other amendments in the BOR.

 

[azmjs]

Until the Civil War was over and the south was liberated, and the 14th Amendment passed, the Constitution did not protect the people from repression by state or local government.

The importance of the recent Supreme Court case McDonald v Chicago is that it "incorporated" the second amendment's protections against state and local government, as well as federal.

The way our system of government works, the supreme court has to rule that the 14th amendment applies a given constitutional protection against state and local governments, and this ruling is called "incorporation" of that right.

To answer your question fully though, states get the power to make laws from the people, as a natural function of government.

 

[kingcheese]

How about we cut off the money to the federal gov't, except a minimal amount, and keep it in each state where it belongs. This way the feds don't have a carrot to offer to do things their way and can't afford a big enough stick to force the issue(s). Kind of like it was meant to be when the Constitution was ratified.

cause then our firearm hating government would impose a crazy high tax on the guns we can currently own

 

[azmjs]

Why is it so hard for murderers to get people to renounce Christianity at the barrel of a gun? Ideas are where the power is.

Mao actually said that ZhengQuan, political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Whether or not religious people can be made to recant their various beliefs at gun point, there is no doubt that they are made to submit to political power.

 

[wallerus]

Simply put, the states get their power to restrict whatever they see fit from us, you and I. Once again I say, it's time we acted like the boss and not just stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away. On another post someone said only 60% of U.S. citizens vote. The number I fear is quit a bit less than that.

 

[geekWithA.45]

The {edited: fill-in-the-blank} is not the supreme law of the land until SCOTUS says so:

Y'all better be danged careful with THAT premise, because it can't be distinguished from "the supreme law of the land is whatever the council/star chamber/junta/tribunal/dictator-for-life says it is".

The supreme law of the land is about six pages of text written in more or less plain English, whose public meaning is static, and designed to be understood by anyone with a 9th grade education and a basic background in US History. Its meaning is illuminated by widely known public documents of the time: the Declaration of Independence, the proceedings of the Continental Congress, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers.

As a Citizen, you are expected to understand this document, note discrepancies with current practice, and act accordingly.

Any definition of "the supreme law of the land" that accepts and justifies discrepancies beyond such degree that honest men can legitimately have a difference of opinion on ought to be held in contempt.


"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is a simple, clear statement with little room for honest disagreement.

 

[belercous]

Geek; Your understanding of the Constitution is severely lacking, to say the least. The Constsitution means what 5 people in black dresses say it does. Its been that way for 210 years now. Please consult a history book for further clarification. {Hint; Marbury v Madison}

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

The constitution is very much up to interpretation, and the second amendment may mean like it does to me and you, the RKBA. To some people, it means that states can operate militias, nothing else. Also, remember guns in the days of the constitution were muskets and Penn rifles, our founding fathers probably would be baffled by the maxim gun of the 20th century alone and if written in modern day the outcome could've been vastly different.


Now into the finer points. I am like you, gun control is of limited to no use. But the politicians and people who support them obviously are concerned about access to guns and their safety. They are not tyrants who want to make us defenseless. The way to stop these bills and laws is to spread the facts to voters, no sit here on our butts.

 

[gc70]

The Constitution means what it says, regardless of what some judges say it means.

The Constitution is made up of words on a piece of paper. It can't rise up by itself and strike down wrongdoing when the Congress goes astray, or the government exceeds its authority, or the courts rule wrongly. But the Constitution expresses concepts that form our American heritage and we, the people, must support the Constitution to preserve that heritage.

People do notice when the Constitution says one thing and the government acts like it means something else. But most people see the discrepancies and do nothing more than whine - or blame guys in black robes. That disinterested or defeatist attitude is precisely why our country can stray from the meaning of the Constitution that the Founding Fathers bequeathed to all future Americans.

As a Citizen, you are expected to understand this document, note discrepancies with current practice, and act accordingly.

When people recognize discrepancies, they have to raise their voices and make the effort needed to set things right. The only way that some judges can arbitrarily steal our rights and liberties is if we simply surrender and let them do so.

 

[azmjs]

One of the strengths of the constitution is that much of it is so open to interpretation.

This allows each generation to run the country the way it wants to, and at the same time it makes big changes very hard to institute.

For example, what counts as "interstate commerce?" The constitution is clear in one regard - questions are to be answered by the supreme court.

If you say that X counts as interstate commerce, and I say it doesn't, we take our question of law to the Supreme Court, and in accordance with the powers it was instituted to execute, it considers and then answers our question.

It is impossible to both support the constitution and oppose the supreme court's authority.

 

[belercous]

If the Constitution wasn't an elastic document (open to interpretation by future generations to meet the needs of a new time with different technology & expectations) it certainly would not have lasted for 224 years.

Our Constitution was/is many things. Mostly, it was a compromise. But one thing it wasn't, or ever intended to be, was a pact with the devil; a ticket to the desruction of the union; or a hinderance to progress. If it was meant to be an unyielding, strict, iron document, it would have been inscribed in stone. They had the technology to carve rocks in 1787. But they didn't do that for this document. Hmmm. Why do you suppose that was?

One answer could be that the F.F.'s didn't want to tie down future generations to their understanding of such elastic terms as "reasonable," "due process of law," or "excessive bail." (in 1787, $5,000 bail for a simple battery charge would have most certainly been considered "unreasonable.")

Yeah, we really need to be tied to what the ancients decreed from on high. Do we really even need to get into what Tom Jefferson, Ben Franklin & George Washington had to say about the interweb?

Things change. And the F.F.'s recognized that. Why else did they use such elastic terms when they drafted the document? Duh, so the document could last for well over 224 years and still be going strong. I'd have to say the F.F.'s brain-child has worked, so far.

 

[azmjs]

It is also worth considering that an inflexible constitution would eventually outlive its usefulness and be discarded whole cloth.

The founding fathers established a republic, not a monarchy of ghosts. Their personal opinions died with them, as far as our laws are concerned. We're a nation of laws, not men, not even great men.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

The constitution is already beginning to show its age, as struggles erupt over major issues not existing at the time of its creation. I however still see it as somewhat useful today, the only thing is there should have been provision for revision of certain portions to better make use of it in modern times. Trust me, if it were written today it would look very different, and I encourage you to look at the similarities of whats written with Marx's writings, its pretty ironic that there are a ton of parallels ton them when the writers were over a century apart. And no, I do not support Marxism, just an interesting read.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Simple answer: Usurpation.

Woody

 

[gc70]

It is impossible to both support the constitution and oppose the supreme court's authority.

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution allows Congress to control the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction (which encompasses the vast majority of its cases).

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

So, yes, the ability to oppose the Supreme Court's authority is written directly into the Constitution.

 

[azmjs]

There is always the danger that one of the branches of government could abuse its check and balance powers in order to subvert our system of government.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

There is always the danger that one of the branches of government could abuse its check and balance powers in order to subvert our system of government.

Don't look now...

Woody