What does your state's constitution say about the RKBA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Axman

Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Messages
681
Location
Golden Valley, AZ
We all know about the 2A, but what does your state's constitution say regarding RKBA?

Here's what AZ Constitution has to say...

Article 2, Section 26. Bearing arms...

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.


Here's how it defines militia...

Article 16, Section 1. Militia

The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created, by the laws of the United States or of this state.
 
Last edited:
Idaho State Constitution Article I Sec 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...

Could be Better, but at least it's better than California.
 
Colorado State Constitution Article II, Section 13:

Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Cumbersome wording to current eyes, but not bad. NOTE: The above is null and void in the City of Denver.
 
Yes, what Sindawe said is "supposed" to be true in Colorado. But the first thing the leftists at the state level and some city levels do is to not only question the right (which is prohibited), but to pass laws against the right. The problem is that there is no punishment (I would vote for laws that have retroactive punishment) for these infringements against the constitution which are committed collectively against over 5 million people and used to destroy innocent peoples lives. I want these crimminals sentenced to 10 years or so for every person's rights they violated in Colorado. Yes, that would be about 2.5 million people who don't share their collectivist beliefs (I left out the 50 % of the population who are socialists who want this subjigation) and that would equal about 25 million years in prison so they never have to worry about getting out. I also "question" my obligation to feed and shelter them for even one day when they are not oppressing us. I am of the "tie them to something solid and then leave" opinion.
 
Wisconsin's RKBA amendment is pretty simple: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."

Try "bearing" arms, though. You'll be arrested.
 
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence
Click to expand...

...... Excuse me while I laugh my arse off for a minute ....

And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Mass. Decl. of Rights, pt. I, art. XVII.
Click to expand...

Some are worse off than us , believe it or not ... I do have a CCW, an AK and an M4 ( clones of course ) ....
 
Zedicus, Article I section 11 of the Idaho Constitution used to read:

"The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law."

Then in 1902, came the decision, In re Brickey, 8 Idaho 597 (1902). This Idaho Supreme Court decision has been and still is the controlling precedent for all Idaho gun laws.

The Idaho Constitution was changed in 1972 to reflect this decision and the new statutes that pre-empted all firearms laws by local authorities.

The controlling language of the decision:
Under these constitutional provisions, the legislature has no power to prohibit a citizen from bearing arms in any portion of the state of Idaho, whether within or without the corporate limits of cities, towns, and villages. The legislature may, as expressly provided in our state constitution, regulate the exercise of this right, but may not prohibit it. A statute prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly weapons would be a proper exercise of the police power of the state. But the statute in question does not prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed, which is of itself a pernicious practice, but prohibits the carrying of them in any manner in cities, towns, and villages.
Click to expand...

So while the actual reading of Article I section 11 may seem a bit odd at first glance, knowing the history and the controlling judicial interpretation puts it in much better light.
 
"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." Texas Constitution art. I, 23.
Click to expand...


I wonder HOW the Federal government can regulate guns if the states do not want them too. That would be an interesting case.
 
"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." Texas Constitution art. I, 23.
Click to expand...
What is the logic that the Texas courts used when justifying concealed handgun license fees in light of Murdock v. Penn.?
 
Missouri

Missouri's constitution states:
Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.
Click to expand...

I guess the CCW law does justify concealed weapons, but the constitution doesn't.
 
Virginia: "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Va. Const. art. I, 13.

TC
 
I find it interesting (actually sad) that the State of New York is so specific in their Bill of Rights about the right to keep and to bear arms, yet one of their cities seems to completely ignore that portion.

New York: "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." N.Y. Bill of Rights, 4.
Click to expand...
:(
 
Pennsylvania says two delightful things:

Inherent Rights of Mankind
Section 1.
All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness. (emphasis added)

Right to Bear Arms
Section 21.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.
 
"I wonder HOW the Federal government can regulate guns if the states do not want them too. That would be an interesting case."

A grossly overblown acceptance of the Commerce Clause applied via the Supremecy Clause--presto chango, the Feds basically can horn in on everything.

And, yes, "the liberals" invented this technique--and now "the conservatives" swing it like an ax, too. Exhibit "A"--the recent Supreme Court case on "medical marijuana".

Every nightmare the Anti-federalists ever projected has come true, and worse.

http://www.mises.org/story/2335
 
coltrane679:

The states can then file suit and the matter is reviewed by the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to see how they could do anything but resolve the matter in favor of the states.

I agree with you regarding the Anti-Federalists... What can you do though? The time to "get back on track" was 80 - 100 years ago. At this stage, I think it unlikely we can. 1 in 6 people work for .gov. In some form (state, local, federal)
 
"The states can then file suit and the matter is reviewed by the Supreme Court. It would be interesting to see how they could do anything but resolve the matter in favor of the states."

Oh really?

Again, I refer you to the recent "medical marijauna" decision.

There is no guesswork on how the Supreme Court would rule. The brief flirtation with reigning in the Commerce Clause jurisprudence is dead, dead, dead. And when it comes to guns, all the Administration (ANY administration) has to do is mention "keeping guns out of the hands of terroists", etc., and the Supreme Court will sign off PDQ.

If you are looking to the Supreme Court to save you, you are sadly deluded. I think there is some hope it will declare the 2A an individual right (how sad is it that that has to be only a "hope"?), but that would have no bearing on the state v. federal control issue. Instead, the issue would then be how much authority ANY government (Federal, state, municiapal) can infringe on this individual right. Given their recent 1st Amendment decisions ("campaign finance", better called "politcal speech muzzle"), I wish us the best of luck on that one. I'd bet almost nothing any US government currently does would be struck down.

In short. fight the fight, but unless you get a lot better justices (several of them), don't delude yourself.
 
From the VA Constitution:


Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
 
Michigan....

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963


§ 6 Bearing of arms.

Sec. 6.

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.


History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 6, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964
Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 5.
 
Connecticut's was written in 1970's IIRC.

"Every citizen has the right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Does your State's Bill of Rights 'allow' gun control?
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
Mark Tyson
M
S
  • Locked
RKBA Constitutional Provisions / Conceal Carry by State
Replies
7
Views
566
Aguila Blanca
A
S
  • Locked
Washington CPL against Washington's constitution?
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
Gray Peterson
G
W
  • Locked
ACLU Versus the Second Amendment:Change the Wording
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Seekerrr
S
G
  • Locked
Presser V Illinois
Replies
4
Views
838
USAFNoDAk
U
Back
Top