Why isn't the 2nd amendment supreme law of the states according to the 10th amendment? Ie: shouldnt the 2nd amendment be the gun laws in the states; since it is listed in the constitution, and not left up to the states per the 10th amendment?
It was the McDonald v. Chicago case that says the 2nd amendment applies to the state, I believe. Carry was not addressed by Heller or McDonald. The SAF has filed a case in federal court in Illinois that seeks to void IL's complete ban on carrying handguns in public on 2nd amendment grounds. The case will probably fail completely or result in concealed perks for the permitted, i.e. shall issue or may issue licensed concealed carry. Regardless, it won't affect Fl's OC ban. We cannot look to the judges on these courts for any relief; they are nothing less than domestic enemies. I question if Heller was really even the victory it's touted to be. The D.C. ban only got rid of the ban in name. Gun ownership is still effectively banned. Further, Scalia pretty much legitimized registration and went out of his way to say the ban on post 1986 machine guns was fine. But what do we expect when we let the same people making the laws interpret them? I mean, really?
Why isn't the 2nd amendment supreme law of the states according to the 10th amendment? Ie: shouldnt the 2nd amendment be the gun laws in the states; since it is listed in the constitution, and not left up to the states per the 10th amendment?
No- that's not what I meant. It doesn't need to go to the courts. The law of our land says that anything not restricted or permitted in the constitution is left up to the states. Gun ownership and carry has already been been addressed in the law, and therefore, can't be altered on a state or federal level. Any law that's passed since the establishment of the constitution is void and has no legal bearing, IF it does not line up with the constitution. Since the 14th amendment incorporated the second to the states, Florida constitution is not higher than the federal constitution. They can't infringe on it by adding a license requirement and banning open carry, when the HIGHER law permits it...
No- that's not what I meant. It doesn't need to go to the courts. The law of our land says that anything not restricted or permitted in the constitution is left up to the states. Gun ownership and carry has already been been addressed in the law, and therefore, can't be altered on a state or federal level. Any law that's passed since the establishment of the constitution is void and has no legal bearing, IF it does not line up with the constitution. Since the 14th amendment incorporated the second to the states, Florida constitution is not higher than the federal constitution. They can't infringe on it by adding a license requirement and banning open carry, when the HIGHER law permits it...
The best thing you can do now is VOTE.
I dont get it though...just like illegal search and seizure- we go right to the 4th amendment...why can't we go right to the second amendment when we carry guns? You don't have any more "right" to th 4th amendment than you do to the second amendment...I'm beginning to think it's time to carry around the constitution and just say "F$&¥ all the other BS!" and go about my business. I'm a law abiding citizen. Our government was created BY us for the very same things that are going on now...this is a republic, not a democracy. It's a free country, not a slave state. I can do what I want, when I want, as long as I don't infringe on someone elses rights.
Nobody makes as big a deal as the gays do! And look what they got- marriage in NY.
We need to stop being babies, stoping wussing out by saying "vote", and start a revolution.
"At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” See Johnson 161; Webster; T. Sheridan, A Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1796); 2 Oxford English Dictionary 20 (2d ed. 1989) (hereinafter Oxford). When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) , in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice Ginsburg wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment … indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that Justice Ginsburg accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.
From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment : Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carrying a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)); see also T. Walker, Introduction to American Law 198 (1837) (“Thus the right of self-defence [is] guaranteed by the [Ohio] constitution”); see also id., at 157 (equating Second Amendment with that provision of the Ohio Constitution). That was also the interpretation of those state constitutional provisions adopted by pre-Civil War state courts.9 These provisions demonstrate—again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia."
"No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105
...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
- Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
- Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436
No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105
...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.
- Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.
- Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436
Oh, no doubt. People have done this with the 1st amendment. And you know what? The courts and the legislatures have pretty much respected it, at least the free speech part. So whether you are in Fl, Wy, or NJ, you can stand on the sidewalk with a sign.
The 2nd amendment just doesn't get as much love from the people. But, then again, it nearly does in some jurisdictions.....just not open carry. Yeah, if a thousand people marched in front of the capitol in Tally peacefully OCing, Fl would have unlicensed OC very quickly. But that's not going to happen.
In the opinion of the court in Heller:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Here are a couple other SCOTUS rulings.
As far as I'm concerned- that's all I need to OC. when I get off these crutches, I'm going to by a cheap gun and start OC'ing around Florida. When I get arrested, I'm getting q lawyer, and challenging on grounds of the second amendment and the fact that Florida is infringing on my right to OC. period. I'll win.
Well as long as you have the money to do so. I don't think you'll be able to win on the "briefly" issue if you open carry all day but good luck. I wouldn't recommend talking to much about this though on here. I could be used against you in court. And the state could very well argue that by allowing you the most common way to carry, that is concealed, they aren't infringing upon that right. I would like to see what will come from the case in Texas where the NRA is backing someone under 21 in a lawsuit over being able to carry a gun.
My comments on here are protected by the first amendment, plus this is a private forum. And actually, Florida IS infringing on my right, because they turn it into a privilege by requiring me to PAY for a permit. It is no longer a right if I have to purchase a permit to do it. That's why I would win an open carry lawsuit, becuase there is no permit required- it's just illegal. Therefore, I have NO right to carry- only the option to purchase a privilege to carry. Which is unconstitutional.....
My comments on here are protected by the first amendment, plus this is a private forum. , And actually, Florida IS infringing on my right, because they turn it into a privilege by requiring me to PAY for a permit. It is no longer a right if I have to purchase a permit to do it. That's why I would win an open carry lawsuit, becuase there is no permit required- it's just illegal. Therefore, I have NO right to carry- only the option to purchase a privilege to carry. Which is unconstitutional.....