Source: http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/where-do-gun-rights-come-from-anyway.html
Timestamp: 2018-04-24 14:45:28
Document Index: 684412221

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 13', '§ 13', '§ 15', '§ 17', '§ 20', '§ 14', '§ 22', '§ 20']

Mikeb302000: Where do gun rights come from anyway?
If the Civic rights model says that the Second Amendment only addresses the Congressional power to Arm the militia granted under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, is there such a thing as gun rights under that interpretation of the Constitution?
Yes, there is, but it doesn't arise from the Second Amendment. It comes from State Constitutions.
I was putting off this post, but Fat White Man made the comment:
Ohio has it right in our state preemption law:
(A) The individual right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental individual right that predates the United States Constitution and Ohio Constitution, and being a constitutionally protected right in every part of Ohio, the general assembly finds the need to provide uniform laws throughout the state regulating the ownership, possession, purchase, other acquisition, transport, storage, carrying, sale, or other transfer of firearms, their components, and their ammunition.
As I said in response, he's on the right track here by citing state law.
Under the Constitutional system, The Bill of Rights is a baseline. States can guarantee broader rights than that granted by the US Constitution. States cannot offer less protection than that guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Thus, we have the Second Amendment, which is narrowly interpreted for the right to apply to the Militia:
One of the legal maxims I keep mentioning is Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others) : Items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. That is, you can't infer that a statute, or other legal writing, applies to something if it is not specifically mentioned somewhere in that writing. (So keep looking in the Constitution for "self-Defence").
On the other hand, state provisions explicitly allow for non-militia uses. Examples:
Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, § 14.[Self-defense right protected, McCoy v. State, 157 Ga. 767 (1924).]
Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).[Self-defense right protected, Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266, 273 (Ill. 1984).]
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20. [Self-defense right protected, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685, 694 (Ind. 1990).]
State provisions explicitly mention personal uses of firearms, but don't confuse the Second Amendment with State Constitutional provisions.
We have this quote showing a difference between use for the common defence and personal uses from ratification times:
Likewise, there are other instances where it is made clear that States legislatures could regulate firearms for personal uses:
But don't look to the Second Amendment for your "gun rights" since that was one of the Tenth Amendment rights which was granted to the States.
So, McDonald v. Chicago gets it backwards by saying that the Second Amendment right should be incorporated to the States--It's the other way around.
State Constitutional provisions grant gun rights, not the other way around.
I should add that Article VI, Clause ii States:
That means The US Constitution is controlling law over state provisions.
Thus State Constitutions can explicitly provide greater "gun rights", but it is ultimately the US constitution prevails.
Posted by Laci The Dog at 8:14 PM
Labels: gun rights, Second Amendment, Second Amendment HIstory
Jim August 25, 2011 at 9:00 PM
"The Bill of Rights is a baseline. States can guarantee broader rights than that granted by the US Constitution. States cannot offer less protection than that guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."
So if state rights can be more generous than what is guaranteed in the federal Constitution, is it permissble for the Federal Law to make gun restrictions more strict that the states have to follow?
Laci The Dog August 25, 2011 at 9:16 PM
Let's make a hypothetical provision for the state of Gunloonia:
That the people are able to keep and bear arms which includes, but is not limited to machineguns, silencers, rocket launchers, etcetera, for the protection of state and their persons and homes. The right to bear is not limited to open carry, but also allows for concealed carry. This right shall not be questioned
Gunloonia can say that any firearm made within that state is not in federal commerce and does not come under the Commerce clause, which means that machineguns and other NFA items could be sold without restrictions as well.
Most likely this law would be unconstitutional, see Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
Also, Article VI, Clause ii says the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary".
Jim August 25, 2011 at 11:41 PM
So our gun rights only come about at the State level so long as the Federal level allows it? Therefore, the federal law is not really limiting gun rights to the militia as they currently allow States to define the individual rights as you noted in your post. Since these are not in conflict with the Federal Law (or they would be unconstitutional right) then they must be in agreement with the Federal Law.
Laci The Dog August 26, 2011 at 1:44 AM
JIm, what does:
Article VI, Clause ii says the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary".
Gunllonia's law, or any other state's law does not trump Federal Law.
You are very good at parroting phrases, but not good at showing that you understand them.
mikeb302000 August 26, 2011 at 11:49 AM
If I were a gun-rights advocate, I'd stop with all the talk of rights. I'd stop quoting the Constitution and I'd never talk of god-given natural human rights.
I'd simply insist on the fact that I like guns and what to have them, period. To me it's no different than my wanting to own a microwave. In a free country, if I can afford one, I can have one.
I think what the gun guys are trying to do with all the over-emphasis on "their rights," is to circumvent the "reasonable restrictions" that all sane people agree are acceptable.
Laci The Dog August 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM
You are correct MikeB, that is why they need the Second Amendment to back up their position as well as the revisionist history about American Gun Culture.
Unfortunately, State Constitutions can promise the moon, but those promises are only good in the State.
Federal law rules--Article VI, Clause ii.
Jim August 26, 2011 at 3:39 PM
"Under the Constitutional system, The Bill of Rights is a baseline. States can guarantee broader rights than that granted by the US Constitution. States cannot offer less protection than that guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Thus, we have the Second Amendment, which is narrowly interpreted for the right to apply to the Militia:"
"On the other hand, state provisions explicitly allow for non-militia uses. Examples: "
Ok according to your understanding, the right to keep and bear arms at the Federal level is restricted to the members of the militia correct?
You then state that states can grant more freedoms in excess of what Federal law allows and cite several examples. All of these I assume are constitutional in your opinion?
Then you go on to say that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land - which would mean that these state laws are unconstitutional if there were no provision in the Federal Constitution that allows for individuals to own guns correct?
Am I missing something here? How can states allow something that is forbidden by the Federal Constitution?