I cited a State Constitution. All right wingers have is fallacy not any valid arguments.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Well, I was about to lace you up. You're just making stuff up and have no clue how very silly your claims are. But I see that Osiris-ODS straightened you out. See post #16.
We have a Tenth Amendment.Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.“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.”Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
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.
This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
What, precisely, is your point?I cited a State Constitution. All right wingers have is fallacy not any valid arguments.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Well, I was about to lace you up. You're just making stuff up and have no clue how very silly your claims are. But I see that Osiris-ODS straightened you out. See post #16.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.We have a Tenth Amendment.Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.“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.”Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
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.
This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary to the security of our free States and therefore subject to the police power of a State.What, precisely, is your point?I cited a State Constitution. All right wingers have is fallacy not any valid arguments.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Well, I was about to lace you up. You're just making stuff up and have no clue how very silly your claims are. But I see that Osiris-ODS straightened you out. See post #16.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Great Golf courseMachine guns or Valhalla.
Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.We have a Tenth Amendment.Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.“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.”Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
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.
This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
So you're not disputing that the Second Amendment entails the people collectively and individually.The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary to the security of our free States and therefore subject to the police power of a State.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Try Reading Rainbow. I know know what else to suggest.Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.We have a Tenth Amendment.Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.“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.”Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
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.
This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and it was never intended to be about Individual rights. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights. It plainly and expressly states what is necessary to the security of our free States not anything about Individual rights.
Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not an Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
I'm not sure on this, but, I don't think the supremacy clause means what you say it does.Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
The supremacy of Federal laws is a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute; the states and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).
Residents of the states and state and local lawmakers will obey and comply with all Federal laws – including Federal firearm regulatory measures.
If the residents of Arizona believe a given firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment, they’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek to have that law overturned.
I see the Federalist Papers are foreign to you.Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.We have a Tenth Amendment.Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.“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.”Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
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.
This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and it was never intended to be about Individual rights. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights. It plainly and expressly states what is necessary to the security of our free States not anything about Individual rights.
Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not an Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
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.I'm not sure on this, but, I don't think the supremacy clause means what you say it does.Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
The supremacy of Federal laws is a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute; the states and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).
Residents of the states and state and local lawmakers will obey and comply with all Federal laws – including Federal firearm regulatory measures.
If the residents of Arizona believe a given firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment, they’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek to have that law overturned.
There are constitutional powers delegated to congress in the 18 enumerated powers, and in THOSE constitutionally delegated powers, federal law is Supreme, but I don't think this act is meant to imply that federal law supercedes all state law.
If the supremacy clause overrode all other laws, then the inclusion of the 18 powers would have been pointless. It would also mean that the federal government could exert dictatorial powers over the entire nation should one party manage to wrestle power and find a way to keep it.
Thoughts?
Not at all. The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized. There is no one unconnected with the militia, only unconnected with the organized and well regulated militia, and therefore subject to the police power of a State as Indidividuals.So you're not disputing that the Second Amendment entails the people collectively and individually.The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary to the security of our free States and therefore subject to the police power of a State.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Thanks.
You first. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People.Try Reading Rainbow. I know know what else to suggest.Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.We have a Tenth Amendment.Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.“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.”Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
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.
This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and it was never intended to be about Individual rights. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights. It plainly and expressly states what is necessary to the security of our free States not anything about Individual rights.
Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not an Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
"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."
They are more foreign to You, otherwise you would have valid arguments instead of non-sequiturs which are usually considered fallacies.I see the Federalist Papers are foreign to you.Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.We have a Tenth Amendment.Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.“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.”Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
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.
This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and it was never intended to be about Individual rights. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights. It plainly and expressly states what is necessary to the security of our free States not anything about Individual rights.
Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not an Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
And all right wingers have is the US Constitution, clear USSC rulings and our own State Constitutions which may not read remotely like yours. I know mine doesn't and does in fact support the individual right to keep and bear arms. Why should anyone care what your State Constitution says especially since it has long been established rights granted by the US Constitution are NOT subject to infringement by State law or Federal law? It has been ruled that some reasonable local regulation is not counted as infringement but exactly where that line is drawn has yet to be determined.I cited a State Constitution. All right wingers have is fallacy not any valid arguments.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
Well, I was about to lace you up. You're just making stuff up and have no clue how very silly your claims are. But I see that Osiris-ODS straightened you out. See post #16.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
What's funny is you apparently don't understand English well enough to realize that the quote you posted contradicts your own argument, and supports the Supreme Court's holding in Heller. Look, I've got nothing against you dp. You seem nice enough and I'm usually entertained by your posts. But it's obvious that English is not your primary language, and that fact reveals itself quite patently every time you start trying to do an analysis of the language of the Constitution (which was written in the passive voice, making it hard enough for a native english-speaker to understand without significant study).Maybe in right wing fantasy.It was not, nor was it a "new" ruling. It merely reiterated what was common knowledge until the mid-20th Century, when the Constitution came under express attack by the "Progressives" of the time, and the education system was primed to portray that then-current thinking as the same as that of the past.That ruling was in (legal) error.The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.“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.”Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
This was common knowledge regarding the common law for the common defense:
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Wrong.Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.Superfluous, but excellent.
The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.
Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
The supremacy of Federal laws is a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute; the states and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).
Residents of the states and state and local lawmakers will obey and comply with all Federal laws – including Federal firearm regulatory measures.
If the residents of Arizona believe a given firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment, they’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek to have that law overturned.
en.wikipedia.org
