A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right to arms does not flow from the 2nd Amendment.
The right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence.
The federal government is forbidden from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms not because the 2nd Amendment says so . . . The federal government can't act because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. IOW, the right isn't what the 2nd says; the right is what the body of the Constitution doesn't say.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't "do" anything but redundantly forbid the federal government* from exercising powers it was never granted.
* and now state and local governments McDonald v Chicago, (2010)
.
Русский (10-22-2017)
Well, the Supreme Court said in 1876 that the foundational principles of the Constitution means that states could not disarm their citizens "even laying the [2nd Amendment] out of view". In 2010 the Court applied the 14th Amendment to the 2nd Amendment which made the 2nd Amendment's prohibitions enforceable against the states.
In the end the answer is, NO.
Well, they could, but they would be fighting federal preemption and supremacy which demands states follow the federal law. Of course if the Gun Control Act of 1968 were to be found unconstitutional because the federal government has no authority to write any law on the private ownership of guns, then a state could write such a law . . . But . . . then it would run afoul of the 14th Amendment which forbids any state to make or enforce any law that injures a right recognized on the federal level.
So, in the end the answer is again, NO.
Русский (10-22-2017)
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
Never heard of the 9th or 10th Amendments huh? They announce the principles of conferred powers and retained rights and that of inherent (retained) unenumerated (not codified) rights as being rules of constitutional interpretation.
I find it amusing (in a 'what a dumb fuck' kinda way) that you are disavowing the legal theory by which the right to privacy and the derivative rights of abortion, contraception and LGBTQ rights including gay marriage have been recognized and secured.
Did you mean to do that or is that just a unintended outcome that flows from your profound ignorance of the US Constitution?
Русский (10-22-2017)
Odd. You just stated:
“federal government can't act because no power was ever granted to the government to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.”
Yet, here you are, stating the opposite. It appears they do have an”interest”. Restrictions abound, pally, on rights.
Rights not mentioned = inherent rights? Pffft. Take that to court, pally
“
A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.
But the Constitution says that what I say is true.
The federal government possesses only the express, limited powers granted to it.
10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Everything not granted to the feds is retained by the people (rights) or the states (state powers delegated by the state's citizens through their particular constitutions, again holding rights out of the compact).
State constitution are especially interesting to read. They call out the rights of the citizen before any powers are delegated or duties assigned.
Just for shits and giggles my state's (Pennsylvania) first constitution established in 1776 first calls out "THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS" then begins to set-out the "PLAN OR FRAME OF GOVERNMENT".
Wouldn't that be backwards if rights only existed because of their recognition by government?
The current PA constitution still follows that formula; in Article I the origin and existence of rights are declared and forever held out of the powers being conferred, then the government's powers and organization and duties laid out in subsequent Articles.
Do you find that structure of state constitutions at all interesting or compelling?
Русский (10-22-2017)
Bookmarks