Commonwealth Constitution vs. State Laws

[Ice_Tiger]

I have noticed that in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in Article 1, Section 21 reads as follows.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Now you may call me an odd duck for asking these following questions.

Doesn't the Constitution trump any and all laws passed that restrict or prevent people from arming themselves on any basis?

Was this section of the Commonwealth Constitution not written in full knowledge that even former criminals, who may have repented and sought to do right from then on out or not, could be victims in any and all instances where they may have need of a weapon to defend themselves or others?

Should not all the restrictive and prohibitive laws on weaponry in general be struck down henceforth immediately due to this simply written and easily understandable Constitutional section?

Also, a "state of emergency" goes 100% against the Commonwealth Constitution insofar as all law abiding citizens are now disarmed in the face of any and all hazards and more than likely cannot defend themselves or others.

Keep in mind, I'm not for career criminals being able to terrorize any and all citizens. However, I am for the commonsense of the unrestricted use of arms for the defense of oneself and others.

[edsollen]

Yes it does however, the catch is it requires a individual with the determination and the wherewithal to carry through with the court challenge against the government bodies that enact those unconstitutional laws.
We are making some headway in the area of "preemption".

[knight0334]

Constitutions only matter when it comes to free speech or religion. (sarcasm)

Long ago it was ruled that concealment of guns could be regulated, very few court cases(if any) have ruled otherwise. But even with that, laws on transporting a handgun and PA's 1st Class City law are blatantly unconstitutional.

Even if we concede concealment for the sake of argument - open carry without a license should be legal nationwide with the 2nd Amendment alone. The respective states' constitutional provisions should just reenforce the 2A.

The state of emergency thing is unconstitutional. Only Congress can declare any form of martial law to temporarily suspend rights and privileges(going by the Constitution, despite what any federal or state laws say).

[MDJschool]

Long ago it was ruled that concealment of guns could be regulated, very few court cases(if any) have ruled otherwise.

Even if we concede concealment for the sake of argument -

Do you work for Brady Center or the NRA now? You know better.

Before any state supreme court case that said concealing arms was okay, a state supreme court said that no provision that simply impaired or diminished the right, even though it did not abolish it, was okay. You know what pretty much everyone else said? We hate the People, fuck it.

Try reading Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822). Because it IS bliss.

That the provisions of the act in question do not import an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, will not be controverted by the court; for though the citizens are forbid wearing weapons concealed in the manner described in the act, they may, nevertheless, bear arms in any other admissible form. But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form; it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution.
If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.
And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.

Bold words, not oft repeated.