Please explain this to me?
I have put alot of thought in this, and Im no lawyer. But how can any City/State outlaw Firearms when it goes against the Constitution? Are they not breaking the law in doing so? Why dont someone take it to Court and fight the illegal act? I would appreciate your best explanation, according to what Ive dug into I dont see how they can prohibit firearms ownership?
0
-
The US Constitution applies only to what the FEDERAL government CAN and CANNOT do (as stated in the Tenth Amendment).
States have the rights to pass laws, but their laws cannot conflict with federal laws.
The Constitution states that Congress cannot pass laws against We The People owning firearms. However, it doesn't mention Congress by name.
Individual states and localities can therefore pass laws that disallow people to own firearms. Many states have, in their own constitutions, language similar in nature to the US Constitution (freedom of speech, religion, right to own a firearm, etc.).
I disagree that they have this right, too, BECAUSE the Constitution does not specify Congress. But, the PTB disagree, and they make the rules.0 -
"Most" states have something similar to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in their state constitution.
Unless the constitution has been been changed, it is just as UNconstitutional on the state level, as it is on the federal level.
The sheeple allow them to get away with it.0 -
Its Bush's fault.
[:D]0 -
Most liberal lawyers that occupy the offices of Attorney General and DA's in states and cities are of the opinion that they will pass the laws and let the courts test them.
Case in point are all the gay marriages. Its clear in most all states that this in not allowable or legal. They do it anyway to make the states/fed file suite to clarify the law in the hope that in the process it will change.
Legislation through the court system, is the game at hand today.
No its not legal to eliminate individual gun rights but maybe its Ok for the state to restrict those rights. The Supreme Court needs to clarify this situation and they have avoided getting into the battle but have let states restrict gun ownership rights.
Why no one has taken New York City to the supreme court is beyond me.
I think because the court was too liberal and they were worried they would lose all gun rights if a case was heard. If we could get one more conservative justice on the court we would have a better chance to get the second amendment clarified in our favor. I don't know what would happen at this time, we may find out soon.0 -
Here's something to think about:
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791:
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.
Wait until those Supreme Court judges redefine the phrase
"A well regulated Militia."
... if Rie vs Wade (1973) is any indication of what they can
do/what they have done ... the party's over gentlemen.[8D]0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments