Court rules it is constitutional to require a "good cause" to carry a gun in NY

[Bill of Rights]

I am not sure, that is why I am asking. I thought the Bill of Rights(not the mod) was to restrict all government and to protect the peoples God given rights. I, just using my common sense would think the States would have to abide by that also.

Oh, if only I could do that!

As I've posted before, it seems to me that the 10A specifies that the fedgov has only the powers granted to it in the Constitution. Since the power to regulate arms is not given to the fedgov, they may not do so in any way. The 10A goes further, though, in saying that the powers not denied to the states are reserved to the states, or to the people. As I read that, it means that if a power is not granted the fedgov and is denied to the states, it is then reserved to the people.

Considering then the 1A, which specifically denies Congress (but not the several states) the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, abridging the freedom of speech or the press, denying the free and peaceable assembly of or restricting the right of petition of the people.

In light of this, let's read the 2A: "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." There is no specificity in there. It doesn't say Congress may restrict arms, thus, Congress may not. It does not, nor does any other part of the Constitution, as amended, grant that power to the states.

Scalia and Alito generally got it right, but in Heller and McDonald, I am of the opinion that they watered down a strict constructionist stance on the text of the 2A in order to get Kennedy's moderate vote... without which their opinions would have been dissents, not the majority opinion of the Court.

My read of the clear text of the Constitution and the Founders' intent was that there be no "sensitive places" in which the simple act of being armed, without any action or even thought against another person is punishable as a "felony", the greater of two levels of crime in this country.

By this read, which, again, is solely my opinion, the Appeals Court got it wrong; NY's law may be in compliance with it's own state Constitution, but it is contrary to the US Constitution, a contract to which they agreed upon becoming a state and specifically to the Bill of Rights, which they ratified over 200 years ago.

That contract has not been rescinded.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndyGunSafety]

This says it all: "I think it's a little too soon for the defendants to be having a victory dance … this case is going to be appealed," he said. "Our attorney Alan Gura lost the two cases (Heller and McDonald) … in the lower courts, but managed to bring them all the way to the Supreme Court … he won where it counts."

Let's just wait and see before we shed any tears.

 

[rambone]

As I've posted before, it seems to me that the 10A specifies that the fedgov has only the powers granted to it in the Constitution. Since the power to regulate arms is not given to the fedgov, they may not do so in any way. The 10A goes further, though, in saying that the powers not denied to the states are reserved to the states, or to the people. As I read that, it means that if a power is not granted the fedgov and is denied to the states, it is then reserved to the people.

Considering then the 1A, which specifically denies Congress (but not the several states) the power to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, abridging the freedom of speech or the press, denying the free and peaceable assembly of or restricting the right of petition of the people.

In light of this, let's read the 2A: "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." There is no specificity in there. It doesn't say Congress may restrict arms, thus, Congress may not. It does not, nor does any other part of the Constitution, as amended, grant that power to the states.

Good explanation, Bill.

 

[melensdad]

Good explanation, Bill.

Actually I think you and Bill are both VERY VERY WRONG.

Have either of you looked over the NY State Constitution? That is the question at hand. If you are a real libertarian then you believe in state's rights.

As Bill points out the US Constitution doesn't regulate guns. That means the state can. Since the state can, and since the state constitution seems to offer NO, ZERO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA protection to the citizens of New York in regards to firearms ownership, then it is within the rights of the state to regulate said arms.

That is what State's rights are all about!

 

[mrjarrell]

The Constitution is very clear on the matter of "states rights". There's no such thing. States have powers, not rights. Only individuals have rights. The states rights movement is not libertarian, despite the fact some people calling themselves libertarians fall for it. It's more of a paleo-conservative stance. Tyranny by a state is no less tyranny. Tom Knapp, a libertarian put it nicely.

“States’ Rights” Are Statist Rubbish

 

[Bunnykid68]

Actually I think you and Bill are both VERY VERY WRONG.

Have either of you looked over the NY State Constitution? That is the question at hand. If you are a real libertarian then you believe in state's rights.

As Bill points out the US Constitution doesn't regulate guns. That means the state can. Since the state can, and since the state constitution seems to offer NO, ZERO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA protection to the citizens of New York in regards to firearms ownership, then it is within the rights of the state to regulate said arms.

That is what State's rights are all about!

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.
How does the state get around this very statement though? The Constitution is supposed to protect our rights not the States rights. I am going to assume some states didn't add the provision about bearing arms because it was already covered in the Constitution

 

[cobber]

While the state governments and constitutions can expand on a right, generally the federal constitution serves as the bar below which states cannot reduce rights.

The federal constitution does not mention "good cause". That would seem to put the NY Constitution in violation of federal law. That would be like saying in New York you have freedom of speech for "good cause". Don't think that would pass muster...

 

[pinshooter45]

What I think is funny is that there is a few states that in their constitution. With regard to the their Right to keep and bear arms, and state Militias they actually state that every adult male should have a musket at least 20 ball and powder. Some one will probably beat me to the search but I'll try and find which state or states.

 

[Bunnykid68]

X 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.

The 2nd Amendment is delegated to the United States by the Constitution therefor it is not reserved to the states. Which to me says the states are prohibited from over riding that. Just a thought.


I think I screwed that all up. Shouldn' try to think about complicated stuff when tired. Don't blast me to bad please.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"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."

In my layman's understanding: the clause "shall not be infringed" means neither a state or fed gov may abridge/infringe a person's right to keep and bear. Since it's not specific to either, it seems to me it means neither.

The one question I've always had though--what does the "well-regulated militia" part mean? Does that apply to citizens as regular, day to day people and as such the use of firearms may be regulated? Or is it just a preamble?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Actually I think you and Bill are both VERY VERY WRONG.

Have either of you looked over the NY State Constitution? That is the question at hand. If you are a real libertarian then you believe in state's rights.

As Bill points out the US Constitution doesn't regulate guns. That means the state can. Since the state can, and since the state constitution seems to offer NO, ZERO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA protection to the citizens of New York in regards to firearms ownership, then it is within the rights of the state to regulate said arms.

That is what State's rights are all about!

I don't like disagreeing with you, melensdad, but in this case, I must. The US Constitution's supremacy clause, to which every state agreed when they joined the Union, answers the question even if you discount the 10A, to which they also agreed.

The fedgov is not given a power, so, unless it is otherwise forbidden, the power to regulate ________ belongs to the individual and several states. If the 2A was written with the specificity I mentioned, i.e. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Congress shall not in any manner infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.", I would agree with you; the states would not be denied that power.

As written, however, in the 27 words we all know by heart, the sentence specifies that the right shall not be infringed, period. The Constitution is a restriction upon government. In this matter, the restriction is upon all subdivisions of government, whether federal, state, or local.

I recognize that Constitutional law and contract law are distinct entities unto themselves; that said, however, I believe them similar in that once a state enters into the union of states by ratifying, that is, accepting the Constitution, as amended, that state has entered into a contract with the other states. In essence, "we agree to these rules, in exchange, we are part of the greater whole." Should that state wish to make laws not addressed within the Constitution... let's say, for example, that Virginia wishes to require by law that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited every morning in public schools and at the start of business in every government office... That is within their power. If, OTOH, California wanted to allow its citizens to be knighted or to otherwise hold titles of nobility, (or conversely, were to pass a law that the members of the California State Guard were to be quartered, one for every two homes in certain neighborhoods without regard for the consent of the owner, they could have those laws only by leaving the union. The breach of the contract with the other states would have been their doing.

Why then, do we allow and accept that a state may ignore the Constitution on this, the most important of protections of our individual rights?

The state of New York has some powers, yes, but none that supersede the US Constitution, and the entity, "The State of New York" has no rights whatsoever, nor does any other man-created entity. Only individual and natural persons have rights.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[pinshooter45]

Found It!

Second Militia Act of 1792
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[4] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall
http://patriotpost.us/document/militia-act-of-1792/
Thought yu all might want to read the whole thing!

 

[Bunnykid68]

I don't like disagreeing with you, melensdad, but in this case, I must. The US Constitution's supremacy clause, to which every state agreed when they joined the Union, answers the question even if you discount the 10A, to which they also agreed.

The fedgov is not given a power, so, unless it is otherwise forbidden, the power to regulate ________ belongs to the individual and several states. If the 2A was written with the specificity I mentioned, i.e. "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the Congress shall not in any manner infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.", I would agree with you; the states would not be denied that power.

As written, however, in the 27 words we all know by heart, the sentence specifies that the right shall not be infringed, period. The Constitution is a restriction upon government. In this matter, the restriction is upon all subdivisions of government, whether federal, state, or local.

I recognize that Constitutional law and contract law are distinct entities unto themselves; that said, however, I believe them similar in that once a state enters into the union of states by ratifying, that is, accepting the Constitution, as amended, that state has entered into a contract with the other states. In essence, "we agree to these rules, in exchange, we are part of the greater whole." Should that state wish to make laws not addressed within the Constitution... let's say, for example, that Virginia wishes to require by law that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited every morning in public schools and at the start of business in every government office... That is within their power. If, OTOH, California wanted to allow its citizens to be knighted or to otherwise hold titles of nobility, (or conversely, were to pass a law that the members of the California State Guard were to be quartered, one for every two homes in certain neighborhoods without regard for the consent of the owner, they could have those laws only by leaving the union. The breach of the contract with the other states would have been their doing.

Why then, do we allow and accept that a state may ignore the Constitution on this, the most important of protections of our individual rights?

The state of New York has some powers, yes, but none that supersede the US Constitution, and the entity, "The State of New York" has no rights whatsoever, nor does any other man-created entity. Only individual and natural persons have rights.

Blessings,
Bill

That is what I said, but of course you had to go and say it much more eloquently then I.

 

[HeadlessRoland]

i always thought that the BOR only applies to the Federal government. However they can be incorporated to apply to the states via the constitutional amendment. Due to the recent SC rulings, I would imagine (hope?) that this would be struck down as the they ruled the people have the right to both keep (own) and bear (carry) arms.

beats me though; IANAL. Just avoid libtard states and forget about it.

Federalism means that the US Constitution only applies to the Republic as a whole, the national Goverment. Bill of Rights does not apply to the States except where the national Government has declared them binding to the States via 'incorporation', a tortured phrase which really means "we will bully you until you apply this to your State".

The Second Amendment means that no infringment will be made, so it prempts the States from prohibiting the right to bear arms for any reason. Some States are better than others, Indiana being pretty good, although Indiana does narrow it down some with the only reasons to bear arms being "For the defense of themselves and the State."

 

[Bill of Rights]

X 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.

The 2nd Amendment is delegated to the United States by the Constitution therefor it is not reserved to the states. Which to me says the states are prohibited from over riding that. Just a thought.


I think I screwed that all up. Shouldn' try to think about complicated stuff when tired. Don't blast me to bad please.

You did, but I think most of us got what you were getting at. In essence, neither the feds nor the states can touch this issue and remain within the Constitution's bounds.

"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."

In my layman's understanding: the clause "shall not be infringed" means neither a state or fed gov may abridge/infringe a person's right to keep and bear. Since it's not specific to either, it seems to me it means neither.

The one question I've always had though--what does the "well-regulated militia" part mean? Does that apply to citizens as regular, day to day people and as such the use of firearms may be regulated? Or is it just a preamble?

"Well-regulated", in the time the Constitution was written, meant well-trained, drilled, and practiced. In other words,

"(Considering the fact that) a [well-practiced] force of armed men is required for a state to remain free (or alternately, for the condition of a nation to remain in liberty), no infringements upon the right of the individual free man to own and to carry weaponry of his choosing shall be allowable under the umbrella of this Constitution."

Note that the above translation is mine, based on informal study and upon my knowledge of the English language. I do not represent it as authoritative.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[rambone]

Actually I think you and Bill are both VERY VERY WRONG.

Have either of you looked over the NY State Constitution? That is the question at hand. If you are a real libertarian then you believe in state's rights.

I reviewed the NY constitution before making this thread. And yes I realize they have not specifically re-iterated the RKBA.

I don't think this "State's Rights" movement is owned by any political philosophy.

As Bill points out the US Constitution doesn't regulate guns. That means the state can. Since the state can, and since the state constitution seems to offer NO, ZERO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA protection to the citizens of New York in regards to firearms ownership, then it is within the rights of the state to regulate said arms.

Do we depend on government to tell us our rights, or are they inalienable as described by the founders?

I have always viewed states' reiteration of numerated rights as a redundancy to the U.S. Constitution. A reiteration of a God-given human right, already made clear by the founders.

The fact that NY didn't add this redundancy doesn't escape the fact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Who was the 2nd Amendment written to protect? You are saying it is apparently is irrelevant in all 50 states?

We should rename this SubForum to the Indiana Article 1, Section 32 Discussion Board.

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

That is what State's rights are all about!

I interpret it differently. I think the U.S. Constitution lays out certain Federal Powers, and lays out certain inalienable individual rights to the people. The rest of the powers of governance fall upon the states. That does not negate the individual rights already specified in the Bill of Rights.

What other reason would there have been to draft a Federal Bill of Rights? Why else do public officials of various levels take an oath to protect the U.S. Constitution?

Do we depend on states to reiterate every inalienable human right? Can a state torture people if its state constitution remains silent on the issue? Can a state hold people without trial? Can a state perform house-to-house searches without a warrant? Can a state outlaw guns? I would say absolutely not.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Well-regulated", in the time the Constitution was written, meant well-trained, drilled, and practiced....."

Ah! That makes sense. Funny how language changes over time. I'll bet to most people, today, the term regulated would mean license, permit, create and enforce rules/laws (regulations), etc.

Thanks.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Here is something to ponder. When did New York become a state and when did they write their State Constitution? Like I said earlier, my guess is some states felt it was redundant to put in their Constitution that which was already in the Constitution of the USA

 

[pinshooter45]

"Well-regulated", in the time the Constitution was written, meant well-trained, drilled, and practiced....."

Ah! That makes sense. Funny how language changes over time. I'll bet to most people, today, the term regulated would mean license, permit, create and enforce rules/laws (regulations), etc.

Thanks.

 

[CalebToNowhere]

The thing is, who determines the definition or guidelines for a "Good Cause"?