Constitution question

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?

77zach said:

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?

Click to expand...

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...

hammer6 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Oh, this is easily explained.

You see the constitution and its amendments are not really the law. They're more like guidelines the criminals in government have to avoid breaking too badly. The CGA's (criminal government actors) know they have to avoid completely breaking them so badly nobody would tolerate it. Thus, looting expropriation becomes a game of risk, a game of "how much can I get away with?" and "how far can I go with this?" Who will oppose me? Can he get me indicted? Unelected?

This is why every comma and every utterance of SCOTUS justices are studied under electron microscopes. Trying to figure out whether there are enough (or too many) votes regarding the latest scheme.

The constitution never was the law, unless the powerful were using it to protect their authority. As soon as it looks like it might limit their power or money, the attitude changes. Just look up the history of the 27th Amendment. Totally constitutional. Yet, Congress fought tooth and nail to oppose it, and even took it to the Supreme Court.

hammer6 said:

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...

Click to expand...

LOL.

In the words of George W Bush, the constitution is "just a goddam piece of paper." A cursory glance at the situation reveals we're fast approaching government purely by the Lenin principle: the only concern of our rulers is "who does what to whom".

hammer6 said:

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...

Click to expand...

Hammer6, it is with great regreat that I am to inform you that the constitution is no longer recognized as the supreme law of the land. It has slowly been shredded for years, slow enough so that the people do not recognize it is being shredded. It is shredded for your safety and security, this way there can be no opposition to it's destruction, you wouldn't oppose keeping the American people safe and secure? Would you?

Mention of the constitution is now seen as a radical act. Simply talking about the founding fathers who wrote it and their Declaration of Independence is seen as boarder line treason or terrorist plotting.

It isn't just a new world we live in today, it is a New Amerca.

The best thing you can do now is VOTE.

Schlitz said:

The best thing you can do now is VOTE.

Click to expand...

It has worked so well thus far. No, I don't have any answers either.

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.

hammer6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Actually, in Fl you wouldn't even need to get 1000 people to peacefully break the "law". Illinois almost got concealed carry because less than that demonstrated at the capitol in Springfield, and IL is very anti gun because of the influence of Chicago and its environs. Here in Fl, if you got a few hundred people to roam the capitol wearing empty holsters next session, it could very well be enough to get the couple votes we need in the anti gun senate.

In the opinion of the court in Heller:

"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."

Click to expand...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Here are a couple other SCOTUS rulings.

"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

Click to expand...

xmanhockey7 said:

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

Click to expand...

You just have to keep in mind that while you are quoting truths, you are also throwing back at the government its own words which has zero influence on them unless its convenient to them.

In Terry vs Ohio the SCOTUS quoted an earlier case to the effect that no right is held more sacred than the right of all individuals to the possession and control of their own persons, free from all restraint and interference unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law. Then, in the very same opinion, proceeded to validate a police action that was not clearly and unquestionably sanctioned by existing law. And, in doing so, the court set the stage for police to distort things all out shape--detentions based on so-called RAS. Just read some 4A court opinions and see what little the courts will accept as RAS for a detention. Some protection of clear and unquestionable law they gave us. Every single detention is open to review by the courts for validity. As compared to just having clear and unquestionable law on the subject. The only thing clear about this area of law is that the police can pretty much seize anybody on the flimsiest reasoning and most of the time get away with it.

I know it would not happen in all states but look at what it has done for states like Vermont, Wyoming, Arizona, and Alaska. They recognized that people shouldn't need a permit to exercise a constitutional right and allow permit-less open and concealed carry. Constitutional carry at some point will be in most states just like shall issue.

77zach said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm ready to get my hands dirty...this is the only thing that's gonna make a difference.

xmanhockey7 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

hammer6 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

xmanhockey7 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.....

hammer6 said:

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.....

Click to expand...

That's the way I see it too. A right that has to be paid for is no right at all. They can make getting a CCW free or allow free unrestricted OC to be in compliance with both constitutions IMHO.

hammer6 said:

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.....

Click to expand...

I have nothing but respect for you if you go through with it. I think you'll lose-these are kangaroo courts. At the least, I'd like to see how they get around the state constitution; "manner" does not mean licensing carry at all. But one could argue that IF concealed carry were unlicensed, a ban on OC would be allowed under the FL constitution.

The "good" thing is that the worst that happens is you get convicted of a misdemeanor. You can't even lose your CWFL!!

I say do it. You'll lose, but it will expose these farcical kangaroo "courts" for the traitorous domestic enemies that they are.

Hammer6, if you want to be the next Rosa Parks, I say GO FOR IT. Not everyone is in a position to be able to go through the crap that will follow an attempt to act as a true American and exercise the rights our founding fathers fought and died for.