2nd Amendment

THE PUNISHER

Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2016
Messages
1,680
Location
Elkin
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
We have some of the brightest and knowledgeable people around so I want to answer to a question.....why the law of the land different from state to state? Just want somebody more knowledgeable than try to explain why some people have rights and some don’t just because where they live?

Just thought the constitution applies to everyone or was I thinking wrong?
 
We have some of the brightest and knowledgeable people around so I want to answer to a question.....why the law of the land different from state to state? Just want somebody more knowledgeable than try to explain why some people have rights and some don’t just because where they live?

Just thought the constitution applies to everyone or was I thinking wrong?

Could you be a little more specific about what rights you believe people have or do not have based on where they live.
 
2nd amendment, we can travel to some me states with firearms and others not.... just wanted to see a explanation on this.
 
I thought we could drive in every state, buy food, walk in parks, freedom.....is it not equal in all states?
 
The simple answer is it is a "states rights" thing. Limit the power of the federal government and give rights to the states so they can make their own decisions.

Opinion-Necessary 275 years ago. Each state was almost a country in its own right. The "united states" of America. What they were trying to prevent-a federal government that had all the power-has happened.
 
So state rights trumps my constitutional rights? I’m not trying to be a smartw$$ , just wanting to understand.

If a state wants to change the right to free speech then what? , can’t say this must say that? Or what about our other rights some more important than others?
 
Last edited:
It can be directly attributable to the falsehoods that;

A - it is the prerogative of the judiciary to "interpret" the real meaning of a statue or clause instead of simply applying the plain language of the law to the facts of the case at hand,

B - that a deviation you agree with from the law is somehow a reasonable exception,

C - when encountering a discrepancy between any law and a conflicting precedent that it is a greater imperative to uphold precedent than the law.

These aren't honest differences of opinion between reasonable people, nor reasonable differences of opinion between honorable people. It is to say our differences aren't intellectual, they are moral and some people are just moral defects.

Public officials either uphold the law, all of it, all the time, or they are deliberately undermining the very foundation of our Republic.

Moral corruption is like pregnancy in that you can't be just a little bit pregnant. You either are or you aren't.
 
Some state legislatures were smart enough to codify the 2a in their own constitutions. Some were not. At that point the US constitution had not been applied to the states. A lot of it has been federalized now except the 2a. It’s the red headed stepchild of the BORs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So state rights trumps my constitutional rights? I’m not trying to be a smartw$$ , just wanting to understand.

If a state wants to change the right to free speech then what? , can’t say this must say that? Or what about our other rights some more important than others?
Said state could only squash first amendment rights on a state level not any federal property in their state if I understand it correctly
 
Said state could only squash first amendment rights on a state level not any federal property in their state if I understand it correctly

So if a state criminalized free expression (or pick your least precious right) and that doesn't violate the Constitution, and all the other states do the same, does that right still exist?

The answer is found in the Supremacy Clause which declares the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, the laws or constitutions of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. It ought to be fatal to the reasonable exception doctrine if we were debating with honest adversaries, but here we are.
 
The way this is supposed to work is any law/ordinance/rule that is passed by a city, county or municipality that doesn’t mesh with a states constitution, that law will be struck down.

And any law (or even state constitution) passed by a state that doesn’t mesh with the US constitution will also be struck down. And of course any law passed by the federalies that doesn’t mesh with the US constitution will be struck down.

But here’s the rub. To file a suit to have it struck down you have to be either affected by the law or be a state DA. So once you get arrested, prosecuted and sentenced for violation of the unconstitutional law you can then go through the long appeal process until it finally gets to the supremes who can decide to take the appeal or not.

So A: nobody wants to go thought that hassle and time in jail to appeal it and even if they did there’s no guarantee it will even be heard.
 
Some state legislatures were smart enough to codify the 2a in their own constitutions. Some were not. At that point the US constitution had not been applied to the states. A lot of it has been federalized now except the 2a. It’s the red headed stepchild of the BORs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even better.

Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution's Bill of Rights

Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

But to your point, if a state constitution is silent does the right not exist, or do those rights vest to all citizens of the United States - anywhere in the United States?
 
Even better.

Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution's Bill of Rights

Whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

But to your point, if a state constitution is silent does the right not exist, or do those rights vest to all citizens of the United States - anywhere in the United States?

Originally the constitution was just for the federal government. Period. Full stop. Remember the BORs is a set of negative liberties. They tell the feds what they cannot do as much as outlining what we can expect. So the states developed their own constitutions to codify the rights of their citizens. Originally we were as close to a federation of small countries as anything. They were often more patriotic towards statehood than country.

Then SCOTUS started to apply them to the states. Iirc first individually. Then as a group, kind of. Like I said the 2a is the red headed step child. Likely in part due to the mix mashed constitutions of the states. So we have had to fight repeatedly and in small steps to have it applied to the states. And even that is routinely ignored and fought over. Which is where these gaps come from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Originally the constitution was just for the federal government. Period. Full stop. Remember the BORs is a set of negative liberties. They tell the feds what they cannot do as much as outlining what we can expect. So the states developed their own constitutions to codify the rights of their citizens. Originally we were as close to a federation of small countries as anything. They were often more patriotic towards statehood than country.

Then SCOTUS started to apply them to the states. Iirc first individually. Then as a group, kind of. Like I said the 2a is the red headed step child. Likely in part due to the mix mashed constitutions of the states. So we have had to fight repeatedly and in small steps to have it applied to the states. And even that is routinely ignored and fought over. Which is where these gaps come from.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that the First Amendment is explicitly and only a restriction of power (negative liberty is an apt description), but not the rest of the Bill of Rights. While the body of the Constitution sets forth the makeup and respective powers of the branches of the federal government, of the Bill of Rights, only Amendment I explicitly restricted only the federal government. Remember, at the time, several states had official state religious denominations. The reminder were affirmations of some rights considered indispensable to a free people with an allusion to other rights not listed.

Bear in mind that one objection of the Federalists to the need for any Bill of Rights was that if you codified some, any others might be presumed to not exist.

A plain reading of the Supremacy Clause negates the argument that the whole Bill of Rights is a limitation only to the feds.
 
Simply put, some states have enough “sheep” to allow their elected officials to strip their rights to make them “feel” safer, trading liberty for safety and all that nonsense, the citizens living in those restricted areas believe that their elected officials and public servants will protect them as if it is the “states” duty to do so, which mist of us more enlightened folks know, is not true.
 
The enumerated powers set forth in the US Constitution apply to all Staes. And always have. Since day one. Everything else is left to the States. The States never had leave to violate the Constitutional powers. But everything not specifically delegated to the Feds is the purview of the States. Very simple.
 
Last edited:
Well, some states clearly have not adopted the letter or spirit of the BORs. And some states immediately adopted it entirely in their own constitutions. Others picked and chose what they wanted from it. I think that’s the entire issue we are disgusting here. That it’s not as plainly read by some.

If it’s truly supreme then how did we get here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Well, some states clearly have not adopted the letter or spirit of the BORs. And some states immediately adopted it entirely in their own constitutions. Others picked and chose what they wanted from it. I think that’s the entire issue we are disgusting here. That it’s not as plainly read by some.

If it’s truly supreme then how did we get here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because it was written in a different time when a person's honor meant everything. Lose that and you couldn't buy meat from the butcher.

They never envisioned what a degenerate society we've become. They would have thought such a society to be unworthy of liberty and fit only to be ruled by despots.
 
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

Ruling

The Nunn court ruled that while the legislature could prohibit the concealed carry of weapons, it could not prohibit the open carry of weapons. To do so would be a violation of the Second Amendment right to carry weapons for self-defense. As there was no proof that Nunn had been carrying his pistol concealed, the conviction was overturned.

We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act of 1837 seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But that so much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms openly, is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed.[8]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunn_v._Georgia
 
So if a state criminalized free expression (or pick your least precious right) and that doesn't violate the Constitution, and all the other states do the same, does that right still exist?

The answer is found in the Supremacy Clause which declares the Constitution to be the supreme law of the land, the laws or constitutions of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. It ought to be fatal to the reasonable exception doctrine if we were debating with honest adversaries, but here we are.
most states constitutions if not all include freedom of speech i was just saying with sovereignty of the states they are supposed to be immune from specific federal laws like pot just an example legal in CO as long as buy it from a dispensary but still illegal on the federal level
 
most states constitutions if not all include freedom of speech i was just saying with sovereignty of the states they are supposed to be immune from specific federal laws like pot just an example legal in CO as long as buy it from a dispensary but still illegal on the federal level

If it isn't among the Enumerated Powers, they have no business dictating to us what we may or may not do.
 
But here’s the rub. To file a suit to have it struck down you have to be either affected by the law or be a state DA.

Yeah that's some serious legalistic BS right there. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original standard. Just like SCOTUS basically gave itself the power to interpret the Constitution, I'd bet this is a made-up legal dodge.
 
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846) is a Georgia Supreme Court ruling that a state law ban on handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. This was the first gun control measure to be overturned on Second Amendment grounds.[1]

It is somewhat amusing to cite Nunn in this context. The ruling actually includes the following statement:
I am aware that it has been decided, that this, like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States.
After saying the US Supreme Court had ruled the US Bill of Rights did not extend to the states, the ruling essentially said screw that, this is Georgia and the Georgia Supreme Court liked the idea of the US Bill of Rights extending to the states so they were going to run with it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom