Would someone mind explaining to me how it is possible for any state/city/townshiip/etc, to pass any kind of law/bill/ordinance that infringes on our 2A constitutionally guaranteed right?
I'm not trying to start any arguments here, or go on any rampage, I just genuinely dont understand how this works. From what I thought I understood, the contstitution trumps everything. How can anyone say that I cannot keep/bare/carry arms in a bar, concert, a school, or how about a federal installation? None of these elements have any power over the constitution.
Of the list you gave the only restrictions would be the bars and concerts (if held on private property). Owners do have the right to say no guns on their property. As for governments regulating these things the fight continues.
Worse yet, the "power" is to reside in the states, and the people (10th amendment). I don't know about you all but I'm not feeling especially empowered these days. I feel more like we have a ruling aristocracy which is hell-bent on telling us all how to live.
Prov. 27:3 - "Stone is heavy and sand a burden, but provocation by a fool is heavier than both"
Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.
The State can regulate what happens on State property. IF the school receives State $$, then the State can regulate carry on school property. As posted, a property owner can say "no guns", but they can only ask you to leave.... it's not a crime. In Indiana, towns, and cities cannot enact any laws stricter than those of the state.
Just my opinion, I'm not a lawyer.....
Only when our arms are sufficient, without doubt, can we be certain, without doubt, that they will never be employed....... John F. Kennedy
Life Member NRA Life Member Marine Corps League
It all starts at the top, the right to do anything and everything either exists or it does not. If it exists, it must exist in isolation from the cooperation of any other individual, else, they are not individual rights, they are group/collective rights, if they are rights at all. I know a lot of people here would call these "god-given" rights. As I am a devout atheist, I prefer the language "natural" rights. Whatever you call them, they have to start at the top.
Now, where is the top? In a Libertarian world, the top is the individual, the citizen, the natural person, the human level. From there, the individual enumerates powers from their own rights in the form of the authorities they grant to their local governments.
From those delegated powers, the local governments organized into states, and from those delegated state powers, the states formed the federal government. That's the top down in the Libertarian world.
In the Authoritarian world, the top is the federal government, who allows the states to enjoy what powers the federal government can't be arsed with, and from the state governments, they empower cities and counties to exercise what powers the state governments can't bother with, and whatever is left over, the individual can use.
If you live in the Authoritarian world, it makes sense when you say, "Repeal the 2nd Amendment and there will be no more guns." If you live in the Libertarian world, saying repeal the 2nd Amendment means there will be no more gun laws.
In general, this question forms around the nexus of constitutions, the federal constitution and the state constitutions. What is permitted, to whom, by whom, and for how many peanuts? The Federal Constitution, properly read, is a simple list of enumerated powers. If it ain't enumerated, it ain't a power the federal government has. Problem is, a lot of people who read laws/constitutions are scoundrels, and illiterate scoundrels at that.
There are clauses such as the Commerce Clause that are misread 8 ways to Sunday to allow Congress to freely exercise unlimited dictatorial control over anything and everything in the United States of America, provided they are able to use the simple expedient of a claim of an effect upon interstate commerce. This is the camel's nose under the tent for such things as nation-wide speed limits, seat belt laws, and gun-free school zones.
Note how the first gun-free school zones law was struck down because the claim against interstate commerce was deemed by the then SCOTUS couldn't even stomach the B.S. the Congress concocted.
Now, as I said, the Constitution for the United States of America is a bill of enumerated rights. These are the things the federal government *CAN* do. What then is the purpose of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to the constitution? They all dictate things the federal government can *NOT* do. Those were a deal with the devil.
A lot of the discussion these days over state authorities to govern their own affairs versus federal authorities to meddle in state affairs are nothing new. SSDD. In order to get certain states to sign on and ratify the constitution, a compromise was struck to add these "negative" authorities, to enumerate authorities the federal government can not do, in order to sooth the fears of those who thought the government might, oh, I dunno, establish speech codes *cough*PC*cough* or gun control *cough*GCA68*cough* or any number of other things that the federal government was never empowered to do in the first place. Good work, guys.
So, we have a federal government that is as out of its banks as the Mississippi River in New Orleans, but some people still give the Constitution lip service, mostly to stave off the admission that the Constitution has, in fact, been rendered into nothing but toilet paper by decades of federal encroachment and, dare I say it? infringement of states rights, and so delay the day when the people rise up and take back what's theirs.
Specificly with respect to the 2nd Amendment, we have a clear admonition, that the right to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Hasn't stopped tons and tons of infringements, since it hadn't been the basis of many cases brought before SCOTUS. That's starting to change. We finally have a modern precedent that affirmed that one specific infringement of the 2nd Amendment is no longer permissible, but what about scope? and what about other infringements.
As to scope, since it was an entirely federal case, Heller could not address application of 2nd Amendment protections directly to citizens of the several states, only within federal enclaves, such as D.C., federal reservations, and protectorates without state-level governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam. How then, do federal protections for individual rights, rusted out and up on blocks as they are, get applied to the citizens of the states? Another amendment, the 14th.
The 14th is not a horrendously worded amendment, but it has still left enough wiggle room for the unscrupulous in power to wrest even more power out of the nooks and crannies of Constitution. What the 14th says is, more or less, if you're here in the country legally, you have all the rights, privileges, and immunities of any citizen of any state. It was meant to insure that the newly freed slaves in the south could not be targetted by laws stripping them of their newly guaranteed rights. Once more, bang up job, fellas.
There were such laws, tantamount to "Driving While Black" writ in black and white enacted in the south, and they formed the crux of cases before SCOTUS where the nine wise men had to actually rule that the Constitution says what it says and it means what it says, but rather than make the proper and sweeping pronouncement about the entirety of individual rights protected from federal encroachment *snicker*, they chose instead to establish a system of "incorporation" of Constitutional protections against state action against individuals, through the 14th Amendment. Clear as mud?
So, now, with the 14th Amendment, in order for the 2nd Amendment, as nearly every other amendment has already been, to be "incorporated" as binding upon the several states united, there has to be a suit under federal law against a state, or unit thereof, regarding state infringement of federally protected 2nd Amendment rights. Enter McDonald v. Chicago.
Everyone and their toy poodle knows that the Democrat machine in Chicago is A) corrupt and B) power hungry, but this does not truly distinguish it from any other unit of government in the United States of America. What distinguishes it from virtually every other unit of government in the United States of America is an absolute, iron clad, carved in stone prohibition on the private ownership of guns in the city. It's a state-based Washington, D.C.
So, the natural next step after D.C. v. Heller is McDonald v Chicago, the purpose of which is to gain for states and cities the same protections of the 2nd Amendment as Heller gave to federal enclaves, by way of incorporation of the 2nd Amendment through the 14th Amendment as enforceable against the states.
But, as I said, those protections aren't worth the paper they're written on until we again have public servants in the place of our current crop of public masters.
When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
Don't retreat. Just reload.
Cathyinblue, I could not have worded it better. You most definitely get it.
Cathy in Blue; have not seen you post but this was spot on. Glad to see you again
Cathy in Blue, your return is well timed and insightful. Thanks