Are the Limiting and Restricting Gun Laws of Pennsylvania Unconstitutional?

[sgser]

Are the Limiting and Restricting Gun Laws of Pennsylvania Unconstitutional?


Maybe I’m I wrong but every time a new law limiting our right to bear arms comes up we fall back on a constitutional defense. Either we quote the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or Article I Section 21 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Second Amendment, however, is constantly being second guessed, by those who would curtail our rights as to what it means. Is it a militia thing or an individual or collective right or what? We know what we believe but to others it is ambiguous. What’s worse, there is no uniformity in our courts.

That, however, is not the case in the Commonwealth’s Constitution. Here our right to bear arms is clear: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Not only should the right to carry not be questioned but it is an absolute right that the framers of our constitution sought to guarantee and make untouchable.

Look at the preamble to our Constitution and just two sections that I believe support what I said above. I have added emphasis to terms I felt should not be overlooked.
CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
________________________________________
WE, the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
Article 1
Declaration of Rights
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and unalterably established, WE DECLARE THAT -
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.
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.

Reservation of Powers in People
Section 25.

To guard against the transgressions of the high powers which we have delegated, we declare that everything in this article is excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

I believe that the meaning of these terms is clear and unambiguous. Our rights are “indefeasible.” That is, they cannot be annulled, voided or undone and that includes our right to protect our property and defending life. And we have: The right to bear arms in our own defense “shall not be questioned.” All this is perfectly clear. “Excepted” is equally clear. Essentially excepted means: hands off

The U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 731-732, said: "The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition. . . . The fact that an instrument drawn with such meticulous care and by men who so well understood how to make language fit their thought does not contain any such limiting phrase . . . is persuasive evidence that no qualification was intended."

The above applies to our constitution as well.

I can’t help but wonder if every Pennsylvania statute, that places any sort of restrictive condition on our right to bear arms, isn’t unconstitutional and, if so, should be repealed.

Moreover, in referring to transgressions of high powers, I cannot help but ask if a legislator who proposes, supports or votes in favor of any stricture on a Pennsylvanian citizen’s right to keep and bear arms is not violating his or her oath of office? For this question I leave Article I and go to Article 6 Section 3:

Senators, Representatives and all judicial, State and county officers shall, before entering on the duties of their respective offices, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation before a person authorized to administer oaths. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

That oath; to support, obey and defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth requires fidelity only to the constitution and not to laws and regulations enacted by legislators or proposed by any official who is required to abide by this oath.

We need to also reign in overzealous prosecutors who would bring us to trial for acting in our own self defense. Why must a citizen who exercises his or her rights be subjected to bankrupting legal expenses? Why must a citizen who simply displays a firearm to keep from being assaulted, prevent an illegal trespass or home invasion be charged with brandishing a firearm? Why do we have to legal theories such as disparity of force? Why are we not permitted to have a loaded long gun in cars or trucks? (I suspect that the Game Commission has something to do with this.) Section 1 and Section 21 do not make any such restriction. Why is the clarity of our enumerated and inherent rights being muddied with legal jargon? We have no armed guards in our parks yet we are told that we cannot provide the means to protect ourselves. Pennsylvania law makes no provision for our protection. Only our Constitution does so.

Article I makes it clear that our rights are unalterable, indefeasible and forever shall remain inviolate. It says so in the Inherent Rights of Mankind. It makes it abundantly clear that our right to bear arms to defend ourselves shall not be questioned. And if that is not enough, we are told that the powers of our state may not tamper with those rights as they are excepted from their general powers.
Article I also tells us that we can make changes in our government. Maybe it is time we started to do so.
Political Powers
Section 2.
All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

We can help to reform our government with our vote. We can advise those who would dilute our rights that our vote will not go their way. Likewise we can support those who act to reaffirm our rights, such as Sen. Robert Robbins, the sponsor of SB 1172, as well as all those who argue in favor of and support the Castle Doctrine. Maybe a RKBA PAC should be formed.

[WhiteFeather]

NOPE you are wrong it happen in 1969 (I believe) when the Constitution for the commonwealth of PA was re written / amended- no one included any past history in change, no one objected, all past court ruling, etc was swept under the history rug. – this is short answer to an essay

[Philadelphia]

The RKBA is among the few (if only) fundamental rights subject to prior restraint.

In other words, someone with a loaded rifle in their car might try to take game from their car (which is legitimately illegal except for special exceptions for the handicapped) so . . . instead of just punishing people who take game from their cars (which is admittedly hard to catch), the gov't in its infinite wisdom simply bans loaded rifles in cars. There you go. You rights are trampled on but the game warden's job just got easier, which is apparently far more important than any of your rights.

It's that type of thinking that we need to roll back. People who can't behave themselves should be punished. Not all of us, just people who can't behave themselves. The gov't should focus on prosecuting actual crime, not imposing on all of our rights in a futile effort to make crime "impossible."