Is it legal to ban firearms?

[DontBurnMyFlag]

I know this may sound like a stupid question. But with the whole San Francisco handgun ban and an attempted ban in Glendale, it raises the question. Is it legal?

Could an entire state make gun possession illegal? Isnt such a ban opening doors for headlines that read "California bans free speech" "Nebraska allows illegal search and seizures" etc etc.

Now whether or not mass gun bans will occur is not the question. I just want to see where it says that even through voting, states can suspend or revoke constitutional rights?

I hope Im making sense. I know there are hundreds of posts related, but I just cant seem to find the answer Im looking for.

Thanks

-Kev

 

[Lupinus]

No, it isn't legal in the slightist to ban guns. To put restrictions and gun laws you can argue, but outright bans are flat out 100% illegal.

 

[Gordon Fink]

But the law never stops criminals, whether they operate on the street or in the government.

~G. Fink

 

[ctdonath]

The law doesn't stop legislators either.
They can just pass whatever laws they like, have the executive branch enforce them, and leave it up to the courts to - years & appeals later - maybe overturn illegal laws.

 

[SIOP]

Legal. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution has never been incorporated to apply to state or local governments, therefore the states are free to do as they please.

When the NRA filed their 80-plus page legal challenge to S.F.'s recent handgun ban, they did not mention the 2nd Amendment ONE time. There's a reason for that.

If you want to find out more about incorporation doctrine, just plug "2nd amendment incorporation" into your web browser.

This is assuming that the state or local government in question does not have their own 2nd Amendment equivalent in effect.

 

[Molon Labe]

There is a difference between legal and lawful.

It may or may not be legal to ban guns; the answer comes down to the opinions of people who are fond of wearing black robes.

By contrast, it is not lawful to ban guns. There is no disagreement here.

 

[Harve Curry]

If it conforms to the text below, then it's legal.

 

[KriegHund]

Anything can be made 100% legal or illegal.

Few laws of today are constitutional, however.

And it is wether or not they are constitutional or not that counts. For while men may make this illegal and that legal, they cannot change the fact that this or that law is violating our 'inalienable rights'.

 

[cosine]

There is a difference between legal and lawful.

It may or may not be legal to ban guns; the answer comes down to the opinions of people who are fond of wearing black robes.

By contrast, it is very unlawful to ban guns. There is no disagreement here.

Oh boy! More great sig material. (with your permission, of course.) Gosh, you gotta stop posting or I'll run out of space for my sig line.

 

[Molon Labe]

Oh boy! More great sig material. (with your permission, of course.) Gosh, you gotta stop posting or I'll run out of space for my sig line.

Oh, gosh, what can I say?

Please feel free. But I can't hold a candle to Standing Wolf. He says more in one sentence than most people say in a paragraph.

 

[cosine]

Oh, gosh, what can I say?

Please feel free. But I can't hold a candle to Standing Wolf. He says more in one sentence than most people say in a paragraph.

Thanks!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Handgun ban
In 1981, Morton Grove became the first town in America to prohibit the possession of handguns. Victor Quilici, a local lawyer, sued the city (Quilici v. Morton Grove). The federal district court as well as the Apellant Court ruled the Morton Grove ordinance to be constitutional, thus upholding the gun ban. The US Supreme Court declined to hear the case, letting the lower court decision stand. The ban stands to this day (feb 8 2006) as village code


there are other locales in illinois like this. I grew up in this state and I'm not sure whether I'm glad I moved out of it or I'm sad that I should have stayed and killed everyone of these anti american SOB's.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Legal. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution has never been incorporated to apply to state or local governments, therefore the states are free to do as they please.

When the NRA filed their 80-plus page legal challenge to S.F.'s recent handgun ban, they did not mention the 2nd Amendment ONE time. There's a reason for that.

If you want to find out more about incorporation doctrine, just plug "2nd amendment incorporation" into your web browser.

This is assuming that the state or local government in question does not have their own 2nd Amendment equivalent in effect.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the rights recognized by the Federal government trump state laws. Ala illegal searches and Miranda rights. This of course all boils down if you consider the 2nd a collective right vs an individual one.

If it is collective, (eg, the state has a right to a militia), then it is up to the states to chose to allow it. If it is individual, then the states have no right and cannot punish me for keeping and bearing arms.

PLEASE for the love of god, may the SCotUS take a 2nd amendment case soon!!!!! I would rather risk it with their decision that let my perceived rights be constantly whittled away.

 

[Standing Wolf]

...I can't hold a candle to Standing Wolf. He says more in one sentence than most people say in a paragraph.

Thank you. The truth of the matter is that arthritis is a powerful inducement to concision.

 

[SIOP]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the rights recognized by the Federal government trump state laws. Ala illegal searches and Miranda rights. This of course all boils down if you consider the 2nd a collective right vs an individual one.

The first thing you have to understand is that the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted to the citizens of this country, but a list of restrictions placed on the federal government to prevent abuse. The Bill of Rights was never originally intended to apply to the states.

Over the years, parts of the Bill of Rights have been determined, through judicial action, to apply to the states, also. This is referred to as "incorporation doctrine." The 2nd Amendment is one of several amendments that has never been incorporated.

 

[notupperwareplease]

Theoretically, it is blatantly unconstitutional.
We all know the 2nd Amendment.
Some people will cry "state's rights!" (10th Amendment) and say that the state is in fact acting constitutionally.
But what about the 9th Amendment? "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, before you cry state's rights, do your homework. Gun banning by states or municipalities is unconstitutional.

OTOH, since when has government (on any level) given a flip about the US Constitution?

Some THR member had this in his sig: (paraphrased)
US CONSTITUTION- Void where prohibited by Law

Sadly, this is true.

 

[progunner1957]

It's really very not complicated at all

1: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, superceeding all other laws.

2: The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution; the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) is inviolate.

3: Therefore, any law that contradicts or attacks any provision of the Bill of Rights is unlawful and is null and void.

This is the intention of The Founders. Of course, our modern politicians and judges can't be bothered with trivial matters such as the rights of We The People.

 

[SIOP]

You see, you guys don't have to go take any quiz, or read about some survey in a newspaper to find out how little people actually know about the Constitution.

All you have to do is read this thread to find out.

 

[Camp David]

Could an entire state make gun possession illegal?

I use to believe no, but recent "bans" by counties against this and that has me questioning the relationship of the 2nd Amendment to states....

Consider recent smoking bans... not the "smokeless restaurants" but the entire county smokeless laws that have gone into effect... I think more of this asinine legislation will begin to affect firearms ownership as more anti-gun legislators move into power... Gun owners might themselves in a area where every practical use of a handgun is deemed illegal... I don't think this is very far off... WE NEED TO BE VIGILANT IN THE FACE OF LAWYERS...

 

[Fletchette]

You see, you guys don't have to go take any quiz, or read about some survey in a newspaper to find out how little people actually know about the Constitution.

All you have to do is read this thread to find out.

Lighten up, little camper. It's not that bad...

The first thing you have to understand is that the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted to the citizens of this country, but a list of restrictions placed on the federal government to prevent abuse. The Bill of Rights was never originally intended to apply to the states.

I agree.

Over the years, parts of the Bill of Rights have been determined, through judicial action, to apply to the states, also. This is referred to as "incorporation doctrine." The 2nd Amendment is one of several amendments that has never been incorporated.

I agree that this is what happened, but disagree that this is what should have happened.

If you read the entire Constitution, ignore contemporary "theories" on how to read it, you will see that it defines these rights for a reason - that all the states agree that these are indeed individual, inalienable rights, and that infringing on them is a crime.

"Article IV

Section 1.


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2.


The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States..."

I can own and carry a gun legally in one state. Therefore I should be able to own and carry a gun legally in other states. No wishy-washy legal interpretations required.


The reason the NRA did not mention the Second Amendment when suing San Francisco is tactical; they did not want the loony Ninth Circuit Court to have a reason to write an opinion on the Second Amendment. The NRA did mention the Second Amendment with the Emerson case in Texas, because their judges can actually read.

So, in a nutshell, yes it is illegal for a state to ban firearms, just as it is illegal for a state to ban a particular religion. That doesn't mean that the state won't violate the law themselves, it just means that it is illegal.

 

[j grimes]

SO CAN THE THE POLICE STILL CARRY IN SF?

 

[tom barthel]

is a gun ban legal

Long ago there was a scrap of paper called the US Constitution. Current Govt officials seem to disregard it. Activist judges are appointed who change anything in the constitution they may not like. Any country with free elections deserves the Government it elects. There is no legal reason to deny anyone any right to be armed. Shall not be infringed sounds simple enough. The only reason is the unrestricted power of the government and a fear of armed citizens. America has become a nation of followers. If you want change, vote for it. It's your choice.

 

[femoralis]

The CA state gov does not allow cities to make their own gun bans. The San Fransico ban will eventually be overturned as a violation of state law.

 

[HankB]

It's legal if the government has both the power and the will to enforce it. That doesn't make it right . . .

Of course, by my reading of the Constitution, a great deal of the Federal government is unconstitutional . . .

 

[Jim K]

Any law is legal, by the meaning of the word. It may be, in someone's opinion, stupid, worthless, or the result of a misguided, corrupt or plain dumb law-making body. It might be unconstitutional, but it is not illegal. Even if a law is overturned in court, or superceded by a higher authority, the people who passed the law cannot be jailed or punished for doing something "illegal".

Jim