so, just as i do often in my free time, i was researching various supreme court decisions and what not, and i had an idea. tonight i was reading about the supremacy clause in the constitution, because i asked myself the question- "can a state law over-ride a state supreme court decision?". so i googled. and googled. and i spent about 3 hours going all over the place, from: the supremacy clause, federal preemption, supreme court decisions, federalist papers, international treaties, and more.
so we had the Heller decision, which told DC that it couldn't prohibit guns in houses because of the second amendment. then we had the Mcdonald decision, which Chicago argued that the Heller decision didn't apply to them because the 2nd amendment didn't apply to the states. the SCOTUS told Chicago otherwise, and thus said the 2nd amendment applies to the states. then i thought of the 10th amendment and the supremacy clause. first, we have the supremacy clause,
and then we have the 10th amendment,
so with that, we can understand that our federal government is supreme, and any law a state has that is in contradiction with it, is void. but the limit here is that the supremacy of the federal government MUST be in line with the constitution. i read two federalist papers about this idea: number 33 by alexander hamilton, and number 44 by james madison. the 10th amendment basically says that if something is not listed in the constitution, the states are supposed to take care of it....
then i found some different SCOTUS rulings that struck down some state laws based on them being in conflict with federal law. i'll give a few quotes:
and there's more.
so look at the last quote, and see where it says "interposes an obstacle"? well, with the Heller decision, the Mcdonald decision involving 2nd amendment incorporation through the due process part of the 14th amendment, (plus some of the SCOTUS opinions i have seen on others' signatures here on the forum regarding a state making a right into a privilege by imposing a fee and requiring a license) AND with the supremacy clause, wouldn't it be affirmative to say that florida's law on handgun carry is an obstacle to me exercising my 2nd amendment SUPREME right? i can't open carry, and if i want to conceal carry, i have to purchase a permit to exercise a privilege to carry.
now the other argument is to look at this from a 10th amendment perspective, which i can easily dispel. the 10th amendment says that whatever the constitution tells the federal government it can or can't do, or tells the states what they can do, the rest of those decisions are left up to the states. thus we have gay marriage in new york. if roe v. wade gets repealed, then that would be up to the states. UNLESS the federal government passes a marriage amendment, or an abortion amendment. then that would be supreme, and no longer up to the states.
so, gun law is not left up to the states, because it is already in the constitution, and it states that it can't be infringed. therefore, since the federal government is supreme, the only law that matters is the 2nd amendment. if there were no 2nd amendment, then the 10th amendment would apply. unless the federal government were to pass an amendment...
and this also includes SCOTUS rulings....state court rulings can't be in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling.
so here's the deal. how can i abide by the supreme law of the land, ie "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", if my state law is in conflict by infringing on that right? the part they are infringing on is the "right" part. i don't have a "right" to OC in florida. i don't have a "right" to CC in florida. if i PAY for a permit, i'm ALLOWED to CC. according to the SCOTUS, that's not a right but a privilege, and they've already said it's okay to ignore that law and obey the right, if it's guaranteed by the constitution. the other part is the florida constitution has their own "2nd amendment" in it: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." now, i'm not striking down the legitimacy of the florida constitution- the reason for the florida constitution is because of the 10th amendment to the federal constitution. BUT, the RKBA was already addressed in the federal constitution via the 2nd amendment. so, aritcle 1 section 8 a, of the florida constitution is in conflict with the 2nd amendment in the federal constitution. EVEN if it were exactly the same as the 2nd amendment, it wouldn't matter, because the 2nd amendment is supreme to the florida constitution, and the 10th amendment doesn't apply here because it is already listed in the constitution. and that means the federal government is restricted by that amendment, and it is supreme over any state law about RKBA.
so why are we even caring about getting legislation passed? do we need not to look at it from this angle? we're already getting proof of the legitimacy of the 2nd amendment at the state level through the SCOTUS...chicago and DC BANNED gun ownership, but the SCOTUS said they couldn't because of the 2nd amendment, with help from the 14th for the chicago case...! so, how could the SCOTUS not be so inclined to rule the same way in a case involving the state of florida? using their previous opinions about states requiring a fee to exercise a right (something in alabama or mississippi regarding free speech, among others), and the fact that there IS no right in florida. i don't need a permit to picket in front of an abortion clinic, i don't need a permit to not consent to any search and seizure of my property, i don't need a permit to not testify against myself, i don't need a permit to get a fair trial, i don't need a permit get a lawyer, i don't need a permit for a trial by jury....and those aren't considered "privileges", those are considered rights. all those amendments are honored in florida, except the second one - they make it a privilege to only those who give them money every 7 years. (and after waiting 90 days to get confirmation.)
maybe a peaceful march in tallahassee, "briefly" OCing every few minutes for a few minutes at a time - while also reminding them of the US constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment restrictions, the 14th amendment incorporation of the 2nd amendment to the states, the SCOTUS decisions of Heller and McDonald - will help them make the right decision. they can make everything easy: save our state the embarrassment of a SCOTUS trial, and just align our constitution with the US constitution, thus making OC/CC legal per US citizenship.
?
also on a side note- all they would need to do would be to take out "except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
also - it says "shall not be infringed in the FL constitution, with the exception for the "manner of bearing arms" can be regulated by law. it doesn't say that they can limit places where we can't carry them...federal law already has prohibited places. i haven't researched that, but i don't know if the prohibited places statute has any effect of law...?
IANAL but i stayed at a holiday inn express once...
so we had the Heller decision, which told DC that it couldn't prohibit guns in houses because of the second amendment. then we had the Mcdonald decision, which Chicago argued that the Heller decision didn't apply to them because the 2nd amendment didn't apply to the states. the SCOTUS told Chicago otherwise, and thus said the 2nd amendment applies to the states. then i thought of the 10th amendment and the supremacy clause. first, we have the supremacy clause,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
and then we have the 10th amendment,
"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."
so with that, we can understand that our federal government is supreme, and any law a state has that is in contradiction with it, is void. but the limit here is that the supremacy of the federal government MUST be in line with the constitution. i read two federalist papers about this idea: number 33 by alexander hamilton, and number 44 by james madison. the 10th amendment basically says that if something is not listed in the constitution, the states are supposed to take care of it....
then i found some different SCOTUS rulings that struck down some state laws based on them being in conflict with federal law. i'll give a few quotes:
Consistent with that command, we have long recognized that state laws that conflict with federal law are “without effect.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 746 (1981)
"A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute." Edgar v. Mite Corporation, 457 U.S. 624 (1982)
Conflict arises when it is impossible to comply with both the state and federal regulations, or when the state law interposes an obstacle to the achievement of Congress's discernible objectives. Gade v. National Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992).
and there's more.
so look at the last quote, and see where it says "interposes an obstacle"? well, with the Heller decision, the Mcdonald decision involving 2nd amendment incorporation through the due process part of the 14th amendment, (plus some of the SCOTUS opinions i have seen on others' signatures here on the forum regarding a state making a right into a privilege by imposing a fee and requiring a license) AND with the supremacy clause, wouldn't it be affirmative to say that florida's law on handgun carry is an obstacle to me exercising my 2nd amendment SUPREME right? i can't open carry, and if i want to conceal carry, i have to purchase a permit to exercise a privilege to carry.
now the other argument is to look at this from a 10th amendment perspective, which i can easily dispel. the 10th amendment says that whatever the constitution tells the federal government it can or can't do, or tells the states what they can do, the rest of those decisions are left up to the states. thus we have gay marriage in new york. if roe v. wade gets repealed, then that would be up to the states. UNLESS the federal government passes a marriage amendment, or an abortion amendment. then that would be supreme, and no longer up to the states.
so, gun law is not left up to the states, because it is already in the constitution, and it states that it can't be infringed. therefore, since the federal government is supreme, the only law that matters is the 2nd amendment. if there were no 2nd amendment, then the 10th amendment would apply. unless the federal government were to pass an amendment...
and this also includes SCOTUS rulings....state court rulings can't be in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling.
so here's the deal. how can i abide by the supreme law of the land, ie "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", if my state law is in conflict by infringing on that right? the part they are infringing on is the "right" part. i don't have a "right" to OC in florida. i don't have a "right" to CC in florida. if i PAY for a permit, i'm ALLOWED to CC. according to the SCOTUS, that's not a right but a privilege, and they've already said it's okay to ignore that law and obey the right, if it's guaranteed by the constitution. the other part is the florida constitution has their own "2nd amendment" in it: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." now, i'm not striking down the legitimacy of the florida constitution- the reason for the florida constitution is because of the 10th amendment to the federal constitution. BUT, the RKBA was already addressed in the federal constitution via the 2nd amendment. so, aritcle 1 section 8 a, of the florida constitution is in conflict with the 2nd amendment in the federal constitution. EVEN if it were exactly the same as the 2nd amendment, it wouldn't matter, because the 2nd amendment is supreme to the florida constitution, and the 10th amendment doesn't apply here because it is already listed in the constitution. and that means the federal government is restricted by that amendment, and it is supreme over any state law about RKBA.
so why are we even caring about getting legislation passed? do we need not to look at it from this angle? we're already getting proof of the legitimacy of the 2nd amendment at the state level through the SCOTUS...chicago and DC BANNED gun ownership, but the SCOTUS said they couldn't because of the 2nd amendment, with help from the 14th for the chicago case...! so, how could the SCOTUS not be so inclined to rule the same way in a case involving the state of florida? using their previous opinions about states requiring a fee to exercise a right (something in alabama or mississippi regarding free speech, among others), and the fact that there IS no right in florida. i don't need a permit to picket in front of an abortion clinic, i don't need a permit to not consent to any search and seizure of my property, i don't need a permit to not testify against myself, i don't need a permit to get a fair trial, i don't need a permit get a lawyer, i don't need a permit for a trial by jury....and those aren't considered "privileges", those are considered rights. all those amendments are honored in florida, except the second one - they make it a privilege to only those who give them money every 7 years. (and after waiting 90 days to get confirmation.)
maybe a peaceful march in tallahassee, "briefly" OCing every few minutes for a few minutes at a time - while also reminding them of the US constitution, the supremacy clause, the 10th amendment restrictions, the 14th amendment incorporation of the 2nd amendment to the states, the SCOTUS decisions of Heller and McDonald - will help them make the right decision. they can make everything easy: save our state the embarrassment of a SCOTUS trial, and just align our constitution with the US constitution, thus making OC/CC legal per US citizenship.
?
also on a side note- all they would need to do would be to take out "except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
also - it says "shall not be infringed in the FL constitution, with the exception for the "manner of bearing arms" can be regulated by law. it doesn't say that they can limit places where we can't carry them...federal law already has prohibited places. i haven't researched that, but i don't know if the prohibited places statute has any effect of law...?
IANAL but i stayed at a holiday inn express once...
Last edited: