How different is you're States 2nd A in comparison to The United States Constitution?

[countryclubjoe]

Hi Folks

How different is you're States 2A compared to the 2A of the United States of America Constitution?

Here is what I have on the New Jersey State 2 A Constitution..

Political Power-(2) All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

In earlier times many people held that political power belonged to a king or to nobles. Now we claim that the people should rule themselves. They have a right to make the kind of government that they feel will protect and benefit them. Of course, if they can establish a government, they can change it whenever they think a change is necessary..

This Amendment is from a 1965 edition titled 'Our Great State Papers"

No where in this edition is it mentioned that a citizen as a "right to keep and bear arms"

More study and research is needed on my end. No wonder why this is such an anti state, they have no mention that such a right to keep and bear arms exist..

I am curious to learn just how many other State Constitutions do not mirror the 2A of the United States of America's Constitution.

Please post you're states Constitution if the verbiage is different then the US Constitution.

Thank you in advance and best regards.

CCJ

 

[OC for ME]

Right to keep and bear arms--exception.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Infringed all the time. NJ does not have a need for one because the 2A exists, perhaps.

 

[countryclubjoe]

Infringed all the time. NJ does not have a need for one because the 2A exists, perhaps.

NJ has no 2nd A , not in the same way the rest of the modern day does anyhow.

REGARDS

ccJ

 

[skidmark]

More information than you probably ever wanted to know in order to answer a simplistic (but not simple) question. Prof. Volk to the rescue!

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v11n1/Volokh.pdf

Google and ye shall find. You owe me $0.037 for the amount of time needed, at my usual rate, to find that.

stay safe.

 

[countryclubjoe]

More information than you probably ever wanted to know in order to answer a simplistic (but not simple) question. Prof. Volk to the rescue!

http://www.trolp.org/main_pgs/issues/v11n1/Volokh.pdf

Google and ye shall find. You owe me $0.037 for the amount of time needed, at my usual rate, to find that.

stay safe.

Many Thanks skidmark-- NO provision for the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. It is criminal.

My .02

REgards
CCj

 

[Primus]

Many Thanks skidmark-- NO provision for the rights of the people to keep and bear arms. It is criminal.

My .02

REgards
CCj

So fix it. Get the state constitution fixed. Im assuming the state has a process since it was amended as recent as the 60s

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Kopis]

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Ooo excellent topic. I'm on my phone so it isn't easy to quote it but unfortunately here in Texas during the reconstruction something along the lines of ',but the legislature shall have the power to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime' was added to the end of ours. We hope to get that fixed. As Primus pointed out, it is possible. Edit: i'm sure the process varies by state, just saying generally...

 

[OC for ME]

So fix it. Get the state constitution fixed. Im assuming the state has a process since it was amended as recent as the 60s

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

+1

Waiting for out of staters to do it for you, or the critters in DC to fix it for you = not getting fixed.

 

[Primus]

Also... Here's some food for thought.

Depending on the state, I wonder if it would be EASIER to get the constitution amended then it would be to get legislation repealed/passed.

For example, say the state allows you to open it up for a ballot question or some other majority vote it would be easy to pass if the actual majority of state voters wanted it.

We know some/most of the state "reps" don't always represent "us". So it would he a way to for us to represent us directly...

This would obviously work better in states where certain counties/districts may have more reps in the stage house who are voting liberal but the vast majority I'd the state is conservative. Isn't WA like that? The few big cities run state politics and ruin it for the rest?

Again, I could be way off base but I figured id step down the rabbit hole.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[skidmark]

Also... Here's some food for thought.

Depending on the state, I wonder if it would be EASIER to get the constitution amended then it would be to get legislation repealed/passed.

....

Hey, Kopis!

Could you do up Cpt Picard for then/than? Can/may? Affect/effect? And don't forget grammer/grammar!

stay safe.

 

[SovereignAxe]

Ooo excellent topic. I'm on my phone so it isn't easy to quote it but unfortunately here in Texas during the reconstruction something along the lines of ',but the legislature shall have the power to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime' was added to the end of ours. We hope to get that fixed. As Primus pointed out, it is possible. Edit: i'm sure the process varies by state, just saying generally...

Ours is very similar

That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

That last part is very vague and can really be taken to mean anything. Unfortunately for us it means that we've adopted a law that criminalizes any form of loaded carry (except in your car as of July 1st) without a state issued permission slip (that's really just a defense to the crime which it still is).

 

[OC for ME]

Also... Here's some food for thought....

MO has two avenues to pursue. Citizen initiated and legislative initiated. Sometimes it takes the people to do the heavy lifting that elected critters refuse to do.

+1 again.

 

[ak56]

Washington State Constitution:

ARTICLE 1 SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Ours is very similar



That last part is very vague and can really be taken to mean anything. Unfortunately for us it means that we've adopted a law that criminalizes any form of loaded carry (except in your car as of July 1st) without a state issued permission slip (that's really just a defense to the crime which it still is).

Hmm very similar indeed. Now that I'm at my computer, this is the Texas Constitution Bill of Rights Section 23

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

Seems almost as if our states both had the same person telling them what to do with their bill of rights.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Washington State Constitution:

Which some interpret to mean we can't organize a body of armed men. I disagree.

 

[shaun]

Colorado: Section 13. Right to bear arms. The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

 

[Gil223]

Utah Constitution, Article I, Section 6. [Right to bear arms.]

The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. (italics added)

I was quite satisfied with our Utah Constitution... until I passed the semi-colon. I guess we can't expect the state to give up ALL control, can we? Pax...

 

[MSG Laigaie]

You owe me $0.037 for the amount of time needed, at my usual rate, to find that..

Thanks Skid, I posted this on Whatcom Countys fazeboog page. Can I send you a check or will you accept paypal?

Which some interpret to mean we can't organize a body of armed men. I disagree.

This is a quandary. Does this mean that the Whatcom County Chapter of Washington Open Carry cannot "organize", or must we remain a "loosely knit group of like minded individuals"?

but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

Georgia
Paragraph VIII. Arms, right to keep and bear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

So, even if the Constitution of the United States only gave the States the ability to maintain a militia (a fallacious argument) the State Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms.