Does your State's Bill of Rights 'allow' gun control?

[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]

Maine

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

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

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]

So what do the various State's BoR's really say about RKBA?

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

 

[jimpeel]

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

Hey, Lab, let's keep it in English, eh?

 

[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.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

ShaiVong

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?

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.

 

[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]

Arizona: Give 'em and inch...

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.

 

[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.