2A Vs. 10A

[MuzzleFlash]

Alternate thread title: "How does California exist?"
I was going to post this in "Political" but that forum looks to be dedicated to planned events and doesn't get frequent traffic. I'm a little confused over the powers of the state Vs. federal in regards to upholding or "interpreting" the constitution.

"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."

It's my understanding that if the government were to enact an unconstitutional law the states would have the right to ignore this in the name of preserving the constitution. Not, as some states seem to do, enact whatever laws they wish in contrast with the constitution or federal law that is in accordance with the constitution. Neither the state or federal government has the right to pass a law in violation of the constitution, correct so far?

The argument then falls into one of interpretation.

"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."

I guess some interpret this as "you can keep your pointy sticks, nothing else, and your right is secure." Though I'm not sure how anyone rationalizes that without completely removing the word "infringed." Can a state pass bans or restrictions on carry laws without violating 2A? Could a town for that matter? I can see how it could be interpreted to mean that we have the right to own whatever we wish in our homes, but have no right to carry anything beyond our property.
I also notice nothing about purchasing arms in 2A. Does this mean it's not a violation to ban all stores that sell them? The right seems to specify owning arms, not obtaining them. It's a scary thought to think if the anti's spent less time worrying about what we're allowed to own and more time on how we can obtain or use our firearms they could legally choke off the supply.

So, what are the rights? What specifically are states with restrictive gun laws violating? Let's say I took my "illegal in California" 13 round XD or evil assault rifle to California, got caught with it in my home, and took it to the supreme court. What would happen?

I believe the right to purchase and carry whatever we wish should be a fundamental nationwide right, but I just don't see it in the letter of the law.

[adymond]

You are assuming any elected official actually knows the Constitution and gives a damn about it.

If that weren't the case I still don't see how the two could be at odds. One affirms a right explicitly while the other limits the authority of the federal government.

[headcase]

Gun, knife, weapon of any kind laws, violate the Constitution. The laws have been being passed, and accepted, since the early 1800's. Look at PA. We have something like 164 pages of gun laws in a state whose Constitution is even less "ambiguous" than the federal one. Pa.'s says the right to bear arms in defense of yourself and the state, shall not be questioned. Shall not be questioned......

The fact of the matter is that we, as citizens, have allowed the government of the country and the states, to subvert the Constitutions every chance they get.

The way it should be is that the federal government has zero authority to pass laws related to weapon regulation. Pa. also has no authority to do so. Every single law related to the ownership or possession of firearms is un-Constitutional. And yes, that includes people who have been convicted of crimes and have served their time.

The way it is.... well, we all live with how it is every day...

[kevindsingleton]

Alternate thread title: "How does California exist?"

It's my understanding that if the government were to enact an unconstitutional law the states would have the right to ignore this in the name of preserving the constitution. Not, as some states seem to do, enact whatever laws they wish in contrast with the constitution or federal law that is in accordance with the constitution. Neither the state or federal government has the right to pass a law in violation of the constitution, correct so far?

The US Constitution defines the federal government. Only through "incorporation" is the Bill of Rights applied to the states, and that appears to only occur via the federal courts, which is a slow, and arduous process. We're getting there, as regards the 2nd.

The argument then falls into one of interpretation.

"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."

I guess some interpret this as "you can keep your pointy sticks, nothing else, and your right is secure." Though I'm not sure how anyone rationalizes that without completely removing the word "infringed." Can a state pass bans or restrictions on carry laws without violating 2A? Could a town for that matter? I can see how it could be interpreted to mean that we have the right to own whatever we wish in our homes, but have no right to carry anything beyond our property.

"Bear" means "to carry". As we move towards incorporation, carry bans will fail the test. Whether towns can ban carry will depend on state law ("pre-emption" in PA).

I also notice nothing about purchasing arms in 2A. Does this mean it's not a violation to ban all stores that sell them? The right seems to specify owning arms, not obtaining them. It's a scary thought to think if the anti's spent less time worrying about what we're allowed to own and more time on how we can obtain or use our firearms they could legally choke off the supply.

Banning stores that sell guns and ammunition would be a very specific infringement on my ability to "keep", or to "bear", and would fail the test.

So, what are the rights? What specifically are states with restrictive gun laws violating? Let's say I took my "illegal in California" 13 round XD or evil assault rifle to California, got caught with it in my home, and took it to the supreme court. What would happen?

According to Heller and Nor****, they're violating the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Nobody is going to predict what will happen in your particular case, but you do stand a chance of winning, if "winning" means overturning California's state law against your banned weapon.

I believe the right to purchase and carry whatever we wish should be a fundamental nationwide right, but I just don't see it in the letter of the law.

Read "Heller" a few times. Justice Scalia appears to agree with you, to a degree. Scalia still doesn't seem ready to overturn the NFA, or the '86 machine gun registry, but it's a matter of time, and keeping the Supreme Court packed with conservative, right-thinking justices, which means voting for presidential candidates who won't appoint progressive, "living document" justices. Tell your friends.