Ron in Toledo
New member
Constitutional Carry is worth 'keeping on the front burner'- a battle worth all out efforts because it is a RIGHT !
Constitutional Carry is a state specific issue.
Moved this to your state - other states have similar threads.
Constitutional Carry is a state specific issue.
Moved this to your state - other states have similar threads.
Constitutional Carry is a state specific issue.
Moved this to your state - other states have similar threads.
Actually the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is a restriction on the federal government, not delegated to it.Constitutional Carry should be a national issue not a state one.
States should not have a say in what is in the Constitution.
That's is what the tenth amendment is for.
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.
The 2nd was delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
The courts I believe wrongly let states have it back.
Mike
In this case I do not "interpret" - I report.Unbelievable comment by a moderator on a RKBA forum.
The States cannot write laws that supersede the Constitution!
Grapeshot, how the hell do YOU interpret..... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"????
Seriously I really cant believe you said what you said. Do YOU think our RKBA should be regulated/restricted?
The 2nd Amendment IS Constitutional carry, it is all we should need from Boston to Los Angeles and everywhere in between to carry open, concealed, handgun or long gun.
Actually the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment is a restriction on the federal government, not delegated to it.
In this cae I do not "interpret" - I report.
Whether we like it or not our RKBA is not total, pure, unadulterated. There is a difference in the laws from state to state -. rants to the contrary notwithstanding - that's why it was moved.
I'm sorry Grapeshot, but your explanation would allow States to defy all the protections in the Bill of Rights. Heck why do we even refer to the Constitution if this is the case?
Because they currently get away with it does not make OK.
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."
Unbelievable comment by a moderator on a RKBA forum.
The States cannot write laws that supersede the Constitution!
Grapeshot, how the hell do YOU interpret..... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"????
Seriously I really cant believe you said what you said. Do YOU think our RKBA should be regulated/restricted?
The 2nd Amendment IS Constitutional carry, it is all we should need from Boston to Los Angeles and everywhere in between to carry open, concealed, handgun or long gun.
Exactly. The Second Amendment applies to the States, not because of the Second Amendment, but because of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that is true only because of the power of the Supreme Court of the United States to incorporate the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amendment (as it did in McDonald v. Chicago), which it can do because the Constitution of the United States grants the Supreme Court of the United States the right to final interpretation of the Constitution under Article III, Sections 1 and 2.Well not since McDonald v. Chicago. States can only add to your Federal constitutional rights; they cannot pass constitutional amendments that restrict the rights you receive under the Federal Constitution.
which it can do because the Constitution of the United States grants the Supreme Court of the United States the right to final interpretation of the Constitution under Article III, Sections 1 and 2.
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made,
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Marbury+v.+Madison
The case was heard before Chief Justice John Marshall and four associate justices. Marshall was one of the "midnight judges" President Adams had appointed to the federal bench during his last few months in office. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, Marshall had served as secretary of state for the Adams administration. Ironically, it was Marshall who, serving in a dual capacity as the secretary of state and chief justice, had failed to deliver the commission to Marbury. None of these facts presented a sufficient conflict of interest for Marshall to disqualify himself from hearing the dispute.
Having ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was invalid and unenforceable, Marshall next asked whether the judiciary was the appropriate branch to be vested with authority to overturn unconstitutional legislation. Although it is commonly accepted today that the power to nullify state and federal statutes falls within the purview of the judicial branch of government, the Constitution does not specifically delegate this power to any one branch. Under the explicit provisions of the Constitution, then, the executive and legislative branches might have argued in 1803 that they were no less entitled than the judicial branch to be entrusted with the power of judicial review.
Marshall was arguing that it was the historical role of courts to settle legal disputes by interpreting and applying the law. In some instances, the applicable statutory or Common Law has conflicted with other laws, Marshall said, and it has been the obligation of courts to resolve "the operation of each."
Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in Marbury has been the object of much criticism. Constitutional historians claim that Marbury represents a paradigm of judicial activism, which is marked by judges who decide cases based on issues not argued before them. This criticism seems to be particularly apt when applied to Marbury because, as constitutional scholar Leonard W. Levy has pointed out, "[In] no other case in our constitutional history has the Court held unconstitutional an act of Congress whose constitutionality was not at issue." Neither Marbury nor Madison had attacked the constitutionality of the Judiciary Act.
Against this criticism, historians have weighed the dilemma confronting Chief Justice Marshall. As a Federalist appointed to the Supreme Court, Marshall attempted to facilitate the growth of the national government through his judicial opinions. To achieve this end, Marshall aspired to establish the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, under which the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of both state and federal governments would be subordinate. He also hoped to establish the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, providing the final word on the meaning and application of any constitutional principles.
It can "mean" anything you want. Without the judicial power to enforce those words by invalidating legislation, and with a vested interested in the legislative and executive branches to maintain the legislation enacted, those words are nothing but lofty ideals, just like all the other heart-warming aphorisms you learned as a child. Of course, the judicial power will not always interpret those words in the same dogmatic manner that some may demand. But you can't always have your way. Didn't your mom teach you that?A constitutional error in 1803 is still an error and ought to be corrected through constitutional amendment or reset all questions of constitutionality. Perhaps "shall not be infringed" will mean what it says in plain language?
It has long been my experience that people see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, and read what they want to read. When they are confronted with facts which conflict with their chosen ideology, it creates cognitive dissonance, causing them to seek out resources which reassure them of their preconceived reality. At that point, argument becomes fruitless.I was really hoping for a more concrete answer that would convince me that it was actually spelled out in the Constitution or something so that I could put it to rest in my own thoughts.