Does the Constitution give States the right to regulate guns?

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Thoughtful discussion does not mean tin horn two bit idiots giving their own reading to historical documents that have been studied for centuries. Rather it involves actually attempting to understand what people meant when they wrote stuff nearly three hundred fucking years ago. JFC

Which I have done.

Tell me where I have gone wrong.

In my own words:

Free states need a well trained and organized militia to remain secure. Therefore, Congress shall not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear weapons.

I could go farther and interpret it to be a ban on both State and Federal Governments because it does not specify. It simply says "shall not be infringed." The Federal Government certainly has an interest in making sure States do not infringe on the right to the point where a militia is poorly armed. The Constitution calls for the President to have to power to call up the militia.

Tell me how I have go wrong. Cite sources if you have them.

 

[bendog]

I already did, booty. But you and TN are too busy flapping your gums to even look them up on wiki. Goodbye.

 

[TNHarley]

I already did, booty. But you and TN are too busy flapping your gums to even look them up on wiki. Goodbye.

Its BootNEY, you illiterate mutt

 

[Stormy Daniels]

One can argue those are there so people wont use their rights to impede on others.

They would still be conceding that some degree of regulation is constitutionally valid. But it doesn't really matter because that's a fairly weak argument anyway. It's the kind of nonsense spouted by people who don't know what they're talking about, but are desperately seeking answers to justify their own beliefs. And like most other times when the ignorant try to dream up a rationale based on limited knowledge, such an argument ultimately folds in on itself. After all, how would that be any different than banning guns altogether "so people won't use their rights [to keep and bear arms] to impede on others"? The entire line of reasoning is both false and invalid and should be rejected in its entirety.

What it comes down to is that your question starts on the wrong footing. The constitution doesn't give the states any rights, period. It does not give states the right to regulate guns, it does not give states the right to collect taxes, it does not give the states any rights.

The states existed before the constitution and so did their powers, or "rights". The constitution merely transffered a portion of the states' sovereignty to the federal government, restricted the federal government from using that sovereignty in certain ways, then reserved any unaddressed back to the states whatever else they previously possessed and hadn't ceded over.

The states already had the right to regulate, or even to completely outlaw guns, and that right was reserved back to them. They were never limited in that power until after the Civil War.

Originally, the second amendment didn't restrict states in the slightest. Any given state could have legislated a complete and total ban on weapons if it wanted. After the 14th amendment, the states were required to provide due process of the law in order to strip people of the right to keep and bear arms. As a result, the states' power to deprive people of the right to bear arms was limited, but not destroyed. Due process is the balance of the government's legitimate interests against the individual's and interests. Therefore, where the state has a legitimate interest in combating crime, the state retains its pre-constitution powers to deprive its citizens of the right to bear arms, so long as the specific interest and the state's methods are well balanced against the individual's interests.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

ummmmm, 250 so odd years of history and multiple Supreme Court cases. What rock you been hindin' unner? LOL

You know damn well idc what political activists interpret when the words are plain as day.
Maybe you will be able to elaborate farther

For a starter, try googling Cruishanks and Presser v. Illinois. I'm not trying to be an asshole, TN, but your OP is historically a non-starter. Before the Heller decision, people favoring more gun control were claiming there was no individual right, and I thought that was pretty weak sauce. But it's even weaker sauce to contend that historically states have not been allowed to regulate ownership and use of firearms.

I am asking where the Constitution gives states the power to undermine the 2nd. Or any other amendment, for that matter.
I have already stated, i am not interested in what political activists have to say.

You're saying that you are sooooo much smarter than Supreme Court justices and constitutional historians of the past 250 years or so that YOU demand they answer you. Which is not the way the world works, TN. Rather it is up to you to read and study and to take advantage or their years of work and even to what they devoted their entire lives to understanding.

Let's be honest here. There have been throughout our history Supreme Court justices and constitutional historians who were and are as fucked in the head as the goobers running the recent kiddie crusade.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I already did, booty. But you and TN are too busy flapping your gums to even look them up on wiki. Goodbye.

Yeah, see ya. Take it easy, man.

 

[my2¢]

Back then, "well regulated" was a common phrase. It meant keeping a persons equipment in working order.

I respectfully disagree, mostly on basis of Alexander Hamilton's The Federalists, No. 29 (written a year prior to the 2nd Amendment's ratification). Well regulated in the 2nd amendment regards citizen militias being equipped, trained and disciplined to stand up to any standing army of the federal government.

So for me the thread's original question comes down to who regulates what constitutes a militia? Can a street gang be considered as such? For now I'd grant the power in charge of answering that to individual states.

 

[whitehall]

How do you "regulate guns" and what does it mean? States have the legislative power to restrict all sorts of Constitutional freedoms subject to review of state and federal appeals and the Supreme court. What seems to be the problem?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I respectfully disagree, mostly on basis of Alexander Hamilton's The Federalists, No. 29 (written a year prior to the 2nd Amendment's ratification). Well regulated in the 2nd amendment regards citizen militias being equipped, trained and disciplined to stand up to any standing army of the federal government.

So for me the thread's original question comes down to who regulates what constitutes a militia? Can a street gang be considered as such? For now I'd grant the power in charge of answering that to individual states.

The mistake is placing too much emphasis on the purpose or "prefatory" clause.

No amount of twisting and torturing "well-regulated militia" disrupts or diminishes the plain meaning of the subsequent clause. Congress shall not infringe on the right. Therefore, the power was reserved to the States, which could be heavily regulated by each State as that individual State sees fit.

So, am I wrong in interpreting the 2nd as a reservation of power to the States?

Note, that the introduction of the 14th Amendment fucks that all to pieces. That's another issue all together which is still undecided.

 

[ding]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[ding]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

The second amendment doesn't preclude regulation altogether. But neither does regulatory power mean that the government can strip down the right to bear arms to the kind of superficial in-name-only environment that liberals want.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …" Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

 

[ding]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

why

Well it is like this, the Constitution's Bill of Rights didn't prevent states from determining which people were people and which were property. So it seems to me states have a similar right determining what constitutes an "arm" needed to for that well regulated militia.

There is a reason for that. Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

 

[Sunsettommy]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

Virtually all state governments have a constitution that ADOPTED the 2nd amendment in it.

Here one from my state:

Washington State Constitution
Excerpt:

"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."

and,

"SECTION 31 STANDING ARMY. No standing army shall be kept up by this state in time of peace, and no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of its owner, nor in time of war except in the manner prescribed by law."

 

[jon_berzerk]

I have seen this argument put forth a few times in the last month or so and i am just wondering where this argument comes from.
Can anyone elaborate?

The 2nd Amendment was not a grant of rights, nor did it require militia organization. All it did was to keep the power to pass laws regarding arms away from Congress and reserve that power to the States.

The 2nd Amendment limited federal authority. Nothing more.

Now, however, it is all fucked up. The necessary but flawed nature of the 14th Amendment, the unchecked actions of Congress in the 1930s and beyond, and decades of appointments of undisciplined Supreme Court justices or justices openly hostile to the plain language of the constitution, all have worked to muddy the waters to the point where the power is unclear.

Scalia, in my opinion, fucked up in Heller. He was afraid to do the right thing and declare all fed gun laws uncostitutional, which would have made clear the power reserved by states, but the potential political and public unrest caused by such a decision pressured him to work a draconian meld of state and federal power without adressing the interaction of the 2nd Amendment with privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.

In sum, it is all fucked up, and those in power do not give a rat fuck. The ultimate goal is to rid us of our natural, preexisting right. That is the only logical conclusion. Those in power want us helpless and powerless, so they don't give a shit.

So that mean Arizona has the constitutional authority to ban words or religions? To ban govt dissent?

sure on that note they can stop due process

and ban the right to assemble

 

[skews13]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

why

Well it is like this, the Constitution's Bill of Rights didn't prevent states from determining which people were people and which were property. So it seems to me states have a similar right determining what constitutes an "arm" needed to for that well regulated militia.

do you understand what "well regulated" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

A Constitutional scholar you're not.

Article 5, gives the power to the states with a majority in both houses of congress to repeal the entire Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

But absent repealing the entire document, this article gives the states and congress the power to reject or alter any part of it.

Meaning there is no absolute right to any of it.

But the Supreme Court decided in 2008 in a case in Washington DC:

Heller v DC that an individual has the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense.

It also gave the states the power to prohibit any firearm it deems "Unusually Dangerous", and can prohibit the carrying of firearms either concealed or openly, and can prohibit the places any firearm may be carried.

In the majority opinion written by the court, it was expressly written that no citizen has the right own or carry for whatever purpose, or the absolute right to any firearm for any reason.

There is no Second Amendment right to own any gun you want, or to be able to carry when you want, where you want.

The court has also turned down three different cases challenging that decision that was handed down in 2008.

If you don't believe it, get caught with the wrong gun, in the wrong place.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Texas:

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS; REGULATION OF WEARING OF 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.

 

[ding]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

why

Well it is like this, the Constitution's Bill of Rights didn't prevent states from determining which people were people and which were property. So it seems to me states have a similar right determining what constitutes an "arm" needed to for that well regulated militia.

do you understand what "well regulated" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

A Constitutional scholar you're not.

Article 5, gives the power to the states with a majority in both houses of congress to repeal the entire Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

But absent repealing the entire document, this article gives the states and congress the power to reject or alter any part of it.

Meaning there is no absolute right to any of it.

But the Supreme Court decided in 2008 in a case in Washington DC:

Heller v DC that an individual has the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense.

It also gave the states the power to prohibit any firearm it deems "Unusually Dangerous", and can prohibit the carrying of firearms either concealed or openly, and can prohibit the places any firearm may be carried.

In the majority opinion written by the court, it was expressly written that no citizen has the right own or carry for whatever purpose, or the absolute right to any firearm for any reason.

There is no Second Amendment right to own any gun you want, or to be able to carry when you want, where you want.

The court has also turned down three different cases challenging that decision that was handed down in 2008.

If you don't believe it, get caught with the wrong gun, in the wrong place.

The bill of rights are individual rights. Not state rights. The states adopted those rights when they ratified them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

why

Well it is like this, the Constitution's Bill of Rights didn't prevent states from determining which people were people and which were property. So it seems to me states have a similar right determining what constitutes an "arm" needed to for that well regulated militia.

do you understand what "well regulated" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

A Constitutional scholar you're not.

Article 5, gives the power to the states with a majority in both houses of congress to repeal the entire Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

But absent repealing the entire document, this article gives the states and congress the power to reject or alter any part of it.

Meaning there is no absolute right to any of it.

But the Supreme Court decided in 2008 in a case in Washington DC:

Heller v DC that an individual has the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense.

It also gave the states the power to prohibit any firearm it deems "Unusually Dangerous", and can prohibit the carrying of firearms either concealed or openly, and can prohibit the places any firearm may be carried.

In the majority opinion written by the court, it was expressly written that no citizen has the right own or carry for whatever purpose, or the absolute right to any firearm for any reason.

There is no Second Amendment right to own any gun you want, or to be able to carry when you want, where you want.

The court has also turned down three different cases challenging that decision that was handed down in 2008.

If you don't believe it, get caught with the wrong gun, in the wrong place.

And neither are you a constitutional scholar.


The 2nd Amendment does not grant rights.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

why

Well it is like this, the Constitution's Bill of Rights didn't prevent states from determining which people were people and which were property. So it seems to me states have a similar right determining what constitutes an "arm" needed to for that well regulated militia.

do you understand what "well regulated" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

A Constitutional scholar you're not.

Article 5, gives the power to the states with a majority in both houses of congress to repeal the entire Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

But absent repealing the entire document, this article gives the states and congress the power to reject or alter any part of it.

Meaning there is no absolute right to any of it.

But the Supreme Court decided in 2008 in a case in Washington DC:

Heller v DC that an individual has the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense.

It also gave the states the power to prohibit any firearm it deems "Unusually Dangerous", and can prohibit the carrying of firearms either concealed or openly, and can prohibit the places any firearm may be carried.

In the majority opinion written by the court, it was expressly written that no citizen has the right own or carry for whatever purpose, or the absolute right to any firearm for any reason.

There is no Second Amendment right to own any gun you want, or to be able to carry when you want, where you want.

The court has also turned down three different cases challenging that decision that was handed down in 2008.

If you don't believe it, get caught with the wrong gun, in the wrong place.

The fact that you can be prosecuted under the law does not render the law Constitutional, but only assures that you will be prosecuted under it.

The words "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" are definitive. They do not mean sometimes it's okay.

 

[TNHarley]

Perhaps, that well regulated militia part tosses me for a loop.

why

Well it is like this, the Constitution's Bill of Rights didn't prevent states from determining which people were people and which were property. So it seems to me states have a similar right determining what constitutes an "arm" needed to for that well regulated militia.

do you understand what "well regulated" meant in those days?
Hint : it isnt close to todays standards.

A Constitutional scholar you're not.

Article 5, gives the power to the states with a majority in both houses of congress to repeal the entire Constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

But absent repealing the entire document, this article gives the states and congress the power to reject or alter any part of it.

Meaning there is no absolute right to any of it.

But the Supreme Court decided in 2008 in a case in Washington DC:

Heller v DC that an individual has the right to keep a firearm in the home for self defense.

It also gave the states the power to prohibit any firearm it deems "Unusually Dangerous", and can prohibit the carrying of firearms either concealed or openly, and can prohibit the places any firearm may be carried.

In the majority opinion written by the court, it was expressly written that no citizen has the right own or carry for whatever purpose, or the absolute right to any firearm for any reason.

There is no Second Amendment right to own any gun you want, or to be able to carry when you want, where you want.

The court has also turned down three different cases challenging that decision that was handed down in 2008.

If you don't believe it, get caught with the wrong gun, in the wrong place.

The constitution can be amended. Nobody is arguing any different.
Thanks for wasting my time, albert.