Is it legal to ban firearms?

[Autolycus]

Morton Grove, SF, and other Gunbanner municipalities...

Would it be possible to sue them under the equal protection clause? I am sure thats the name of it but basically says that no other person has more rights then you. I believe its the 14th amendment.

 

[hugh damright]

Could an entire state make gun possession illegal?

No. Although each State is free to make its own gun laws, there are federal limits.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the rights recognized by the Federal government trump state laws.

The States did not create the US to trump their laws. I believe the way it is supposed to work is that if State and federal laws collide, then the feds have the burden of proving that the State law is interfering with federal jurisidiction.

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

Does that include the Tenth Amendment? Is any law that attacks the powers reserved to the States "null and void"?

Would it be possible to sue them under the equal protection clause? I am sure thats the name of it but basically says that no other person has more rights then you. I believe its the 14th amendment.

Well, the 14th "Amendment" passed because they said it passed, and it means what they say it means, so sure why not? But if no person can have more rights than another ... if rights can't vary from State to State, then why do we have States? Maybe we should just get rid of all those evil States and Counties that allow inequalities to exist:


Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., of Illinois, brought down the house with a vociferous condemnation of federalism. He said that the nation’s greatest problem is “a separate and unequal system” of “50 separate and unequal states and 3,067 separate and unequal counties [that] must be rooted out root and branch.” “The enemy here is the Tenth Amendment, the unenumerated rights” which permits inequalities to exist.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3149

 

[lobo264]

Quote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the rights recognized by the Federal government trump state laws.
The States did not create the US to trump their laws. I believe the way it is supposed to work is that if State and federal laws collide, then the feds have the burden of proving that the State law is interfering with federal jurisidiction.

Quote:
Therefore, any law that contradicts or attacks any provision of the Bill of Rights is unlawful and is null and void.
Does that include the Tenth Amendment? Is any law that attacks the powers reserved to the States "null and void"?

Doesn't Article VI of the Constitution take care of all this?
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Ignoring that pesky bit about treaties and such.

Take care

 

[gunsmith]

J.Grimes police question

yes the LE can still carry as a matter of fact the silly ban (which implementation of has been delayed) says cops and security guards may still own handguns, furthermore the silly ban does not prevent a CA CCW'er from other counties from carrying a gun or preven you from driving thru town with your hand gun.

If the the silly ban passes Court muster it will only affect those who obey the law. When I lived in San Francisco I allways carried a gun

 

[RealGun]

Maybe we should just get rid of all those evil States and Counties that allow inequalities to exist: - SIOP

We could just get serious about enforcing the 14th Amendment.

I don't believe it is true that States can do what they want until the 2A is incorporated via the 14th Amendment. The case is actually that the States have not been successfully challenged. They aren't righteous in the meantime. They are ignoring the 14A until FORCED to do otherwise.

 

[Kentak]

The simple answer is, yes, it's legal to ban guns. It has been done on the federal, state, and municipal levels.

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to definitively uphold a general individual right to keep and bear arms, based on the Second Amendment. To hang our hats on the Constitution to save our gun rights is a grave mistake. The Constitution means what a court says it means, no more, no less. I may not like that, you may not like that, but that's the real world.

This is a political and philosophical fight, not a legalistic one. Gun rights will be preserved at the ballot box, or not at all.

K

 

[U.S.SFC_RET]

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.infringed.infringed.infringed.

from dictionary.com

in·fringe
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in·fring·er noun

I get infringed upon every time go into the public of Md. Cannot CCW. Get infringed when I want to buy a 1911 without a gunlock. Drive with one in a car and you have to have it locked in the carrying case in the trunk, ammunition separated. You can't even swing through the drivethrough at Mcdonalds for a cup of coffee on the way to the range. .