Does California Violate MY Rights As A US CItizen...? - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Does California Violate MY Rights As A US CItizen...? (Page 2 of 3)

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:40:11 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,
Thank God someone else understands what the constitution actually does.
By this absurd logic, the STATES can legally:

- ban all firearms
- confiscate property with no compensation
- search your home without warrant or cause
- jail people without charge or trial
- engage in double-jeopardy
- ignore grand jury requirements
- impose excessive fines
- force self-incrimination
- abolish all jury trials
- refuse the accused to have defense counsel
- inflict torture as punishment
- summarily execute people in the streets

Those are only prohibited by the BOR if done by the Federal Gov't. The states can choose to do any or all of the above it they want.

Yeah, that's what the Founding Fathers were thinking would be a good idea.

Yes the US goverment has no power to keep the states for doing this

Your argument is absurd. I recall the civil war resolved that little issue.

The banning of slavery in the form of amendment to the U.S. Constitution is what outlawed it in every state. State constitutions cannot violate the U.S. Constitution just as local laws cannot violate state constitution.

Lern 'dem histerie and 'dem lawz befur ya open yer trap.

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:41:39 PM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
The Constitution simply DOES NOT address the intrusion of state government into private life. There is no way you can read that into it because it doesn't exist. Nothing in the text or context supports that.

The Constitution does not explicitly limit the BOR to JUST the FedGov so there's no basis to say that it does.

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:42:22 PM EDT

[#3]

if the consistution is the seprem law why do states have thier own consistutions, or why is there even any states at all if they all have the same laws

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:42:59 PM EDT

[#4]

Might I add if you're from Vermont, you could say that Florida was violating your rights in the same vein.

What can you expect if there is a basic disagreement throughout the US on whether the 2nd is an individual right or a collective right added to the fact that some states have a "2nd Amendment" article in their State Constitutions and others do not.

Required reference to bazookas, anti-aircraft guns and nuclear arms....

Nevertheless I'd like to hear a lawyer chime in with the accepted reasoning, if there is any. I kind of wonder if there is seeing as how the Congress saw fit to pass a law that merely gave you the right to transit other states with your "fully secured" firearms, (well, every state but New York). That seems to acknowledge the basic "right" under the 2nd is unsecured and in different standing than other "incorporated" rights, via the 14th.

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:43:34 PM EDT

[#5]

I don't know what you mean by registering firearms.

I understand what you are saying but it is flawed. A similar argument would be if I asked "Is florida stealing my money?"

Since I paid taxes and California used some of that money to help Florida with the hurricanes I could easily make the corrilation.

You see?

Sgatr15

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:44:27 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,
Thank God someone else understands what the constitution actually does.
By this absurd logic, the STATES can legally:

- ban all firearms
- confiscate property with no compensation
- search your home without warrant or cause
- jail people without charge or trial
- engage in double-jeopardy
- ignore grand jury requirements
- impose excessive fines
- force self-incrimination
- abolish all jury trials
- refuse the accused to have defense counsel
- inflict torture as punishment
- summarily execute people in the streets

Those are only prohibited by the BOR if done by the Federal Gov't. The states can choose to do any or all of the above it they want.

Yeah, that's what the Founding Fathers were thinking would be a good idea.

Yes the US goverment has no power to keep the states for doing this

Your argument is absurd. I recall the civil war resolved that little issue.

The banning of slavery in the form of amendment to the U.S. Constitution is what outlawed it in every state. State constitutions cannot violate the U.S. Constitution just as local laws cannot violate state constitution.

Lern 'dem histerie and 'dem lawz befur ya open yer trap.

well then I'm a confederate.

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:45:37 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The Constitution simply DOES NOT address the intrusion of state government into private life. There is no way you can read that into it because it doesn't exist. Nothing in the text or context supports that.

The Constitution does not explicitly limit the BOR to JUST the FedGov so there's no basis to say that it does.

Apparently some people have no idea how our governments work. They are not IDNEPENDENT government.s The higher level governments have jurisdiction over the lower governments. Not only does this work on the legislative branch, it also works on the other branches.

In the judicial branch the Supreme Court always has final ruling(hence name "supreme").
In the executive branch the President is supreme over the governors.

We are not seperate, unruly nations or that would make our national government completely useless. And national government seats would be powerless.

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:49:08 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you're grasping the concept of Federalism in the traditional sense of the word.

You have a right as a united states citizen to keep and bear arms. You also have many other rights as a United States citizen which are not mentioned by the Bill of Rights, but are still yours nonetheless.

However, you are not JUST a US citizen. You are also a citizen of your State. Though the Federal Government may not violate your second Amendment right, the state of California has a different constitution which tells its government what it may or may not do.

The FEDERAL constitution does not define or constrain the state governments except in those instances where it delegates authority specifically to the Federal government.

Therefore, no. California is not violating your rights as a US citizen. However, the state of California WOULD be violating its citizens rights under the California constitution IF the California state constitution included a RKBA as many other states do.

So, the 5th Amendment means nothing in California?

Actually it seems the 5th Amendment didn't exist in Maryland in 1822 before the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment and the "Second Bill of Rights"

In 1815, John Barron, a successful businessman, owned a wharf located at the deepest part of Baltimore's harbor. That year, several city street improvement projects diverted streams, which caused soil to build up in front of Barron's wharf. By 1822, no ships could tie up at the wharf and John Barron was out of business.

Barron went to a state court and sued the city of Baltimore for destroying his wharf business. According to the Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, Barron argued, private property could not be taken or reduced in value for public use without "just compensation." The case finally ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court. Writing for the majority of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice John Marshall dismissed Barron's lawsuit on the grounds that the Fifth Amendment, as well as all the amendments of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the national government and not to the states. [Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1833)]

The Barron decision established the principle that the rights listed in the original Bill of Rights did not control state laws or actions. A state could abolish freedom of speech, establish a tax-supported church, or do away with jury trials in state courts without violating the Bill of Rights.

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:51:58 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Constitution simply DOES NOT address the intrusion of state government into private life. There is no way you can read that into it because it doesn't exist. Nothing in the text or context supports that.

The Constitution does not explicitly limit the BOR to JUST the FedGov so there's no basis to say that it does.

Apparently some people have no idea how our governments work. They are not IDNEPENDENT government.s The higher level governments have jurisdiction over the lower governments. Not only does this work on the legislative branch, it also works on the other branches.

In the judicial branch the Supreme Court always has final ruling(hence name "supreme").
In the executive branch the President is supreme over the governors.

We are not seperate, unruly nations or that would make our national government completely useless. And national government seats would be powerless.

The supreme court only is supreme over the federal courts. Thats why Each State has its own Supreme court, to rule over the states courts.

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:58:18 PM EDT

[#10]

You can travel with firearms into California if not a resident, but they have to be in a seperate locked container from the ammunition, and unloaded. You can even transport an "Assault Rifle" into Cali if it is for the purpose of attending competition, and you have proof of a competition or gathering being held (entry application). But no high cap mags. It states it in the Cali penal code. True, you could never travel with I firearm that is anywhere near being ready to be used for it's intended purpose (loaded and ready to fire), but you can still transport them through the state as a non resident.

Posted: 8/5/2005 1:59:58 PM EDT

[#11]

The Bill of Rights

Incorporated or Not Incorporated?
1st Amendment: Fully incorporated.
2nd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision on incorporation since 1876 (when it was rejected).
3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated.
4th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment.
6th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
7th Amendment: Not incorporated.
8th Amendment: Fully incorporated.

www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/incorp.htm

The 2nd seems to be a hot potato.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:01:36 PM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you're grasping the concept of Federalism in the traditional sense of the word.

You have a right as a united states citizen to keep and bear arms. You also have many other rights as a United States citizen which are not mentioned by the Bill of Rights, but are still yours nonetheless.

However, you are not JUST a US citizen. You are also a citizen of your State. Though the Federal Government may not violate your second Amendment right, the state of California has a different constitution which tells its government what it may or may not do.

The FEDERAL constitution does not define or constrain the state governments except in those instances where it delegates authority specifically to the Federal government.

Therefore, no. California is not violating your rights as a US citizen. However, the state of California WOULD be violating its citizens rights under the California constitution IF the California state constitution included a RKBA as many other states do.

What you're saying is the BIll of Rights does not apply to everyone within the borders of the US. I don't think so.

That's like saying Iowa could outlaw the pratice of Islam within its borders as long as its state constitution has no freedom of religion provision.

All of the amendments apply to all of the states.

Exactly. Protected rights in the federal constitution are the minimum protections afforded to any citizen of the Union. States can provide legal protections for other rights, but they cannot legally and constitutionally violate the guaranteed rights of the federal constitution.

Thats a dangerous sentiment because it implies that before the constitution, people didn't have those rights.

Bear in mind that the reason for the Bill of Rights was not over fear of STATES infringing upon people's rights. It was over a fear of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing so.

And yes, I did answer Mac's question, you just weren't reading closely. The Constitution of the Federal government is exactly that. It says what the Federal government may or may not do.

You can quote the actual Amendments all day long and say "Look it doesn't say 'Federal'" but that doesn't change the fact that the document's entire reason for existence is to define the Federal Government.

eta: and I'm through arguing this point. I can't make you understand what the constitution does or why it was written. All my arguing will not enlighten you if you don't want to learn. This edit was not meant to piss off anyone. Please take it in the spirit in which it was given.

You can say that you are through arguing or that you have addressed a certain question. Well, you haven't.

Very simply, do the states have the right to violate all the other amendments besides the 2nd (which you seem to think they can) in the Bill of Rights? Yes or no.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:05:10 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you're grasping the concept of Federalism in the traditional sense of the word.

You have a right as a united states citizen to keep and bear arms. You also have many other rights as a United States citizen which are not mentioned by the Bill of Rights, but are still yours nonetheless.

However, you are not JUST a US citizen. You are also a citizen of your State. Though the Federal Government may not violate your second Amendment right, the state of California has a different constitution which tells its government what it may or may not do.

The FEDERAL constitution does not define or constrain the state governments except in those instances where it delegates authority specifically to the Federal government.

Therefore, no. California is not violating your rights as a US citizen. However, the state of California WOULD be violating its citizens rights under the California constitution IF the California state constitution included a RKBA as many other states do.

What you're saying is the BIll of Rights does not apply to everyone within the borders of the US. I don't think so.

That's like saying Iowa could outlaw the pratice of Islam within its borders as long as its state constitution has no freedom of religion provision.

All of the amendments apply to all of the states.

Exactly. Protected rights in the federal constitution are the minimum protections afforded to any citizen of the Union. States can provide legal protections for other rights, but they cannot legally and constitutionally violate the guaranteed rights of the federal constitution.

Thats a dangerous sentiment because it implies that before the constitution, people didn't have those rights.

Bear in mind that the reason for the Bill of Rights was not over fear of STATES infringing upon people's rights. It was over a fear of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing so.

And yes, I did answer Mac's question, you just weren't reading closely. The Constitution of the Federal government is exactly that. It says what the Federal government may or may not do.

You can quote the actual Amendments all day long and say "Look it doesn't say 'Federal'" but that doesn't change the fact that the document's entire reason for existence is to define the Federal Government.

eta: and I'm through arguing this point. I can't make you understand what the constitution does or why it was written. All my arguing will not enlighten you if you don't want to learn. This edit was not meant to piss off anyone. Please take it in the spirit in which it was given.

You can say that you are through arguing or that you have addressed a certain question. Well, you haven't.

Very simply, do the states have the right to violate all the other amendments besides the 2nd (which you seem to think they can) in the Bill of Rights? Yes or no.

Yes

And they Arnt violating any thing
To the state the BOR doesn't legaly exsit.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:06:01 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,

1. No such word as "irregardless"
2. You misspelled the non-existant word
3. You are wrong. Like Mac said, if it only protects against the Feds, it is useless.
4. Do you think that NY or CA can violate the 5th, for example? If they did, it would wind up in Federal court so fast your head would snap.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:07:06 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You can quote the actual Amendments all day long and say "Look it doesn't say 'Federal'" but that doesn't change the fact that the document's entire reason for existence is to define the Federal Government.

The Founding Fathers were not stupid. The same tyranny that can smother all rights at the Federal level can do so at the state level. That's why the BOR do not directly address limitations towards the Federal Gov't but instead state that those enumerated rights of the people are protected - PERIOD.

The BOR was not written as part of the original Constitution - but added a few years later at the insistance of those who feared that individual rights would be at risk if the current Constitution were left as-is. They were concerned about protecting rights - not directing those protections against the Federal Gov't ALONE.

Again, if all of the amendments in the BOR protect ONLY against Federal Gov't intrusion but intentionally ALLOW for state gov't intrusion, then the BOR in fact offers NO protection of our rights and is an utterly useless waste of paper and ink and the FFs were completely naive, myopic fools.

They weren't myopic. But they certainly didn't intend for the constitution to become some sort of superior sphere of dominance above the states.

The Constitution simply DOES NOT address the intrusion of state government into private life. There is no way you can read that into it because it doesn't exist. Nothing in the text or context supports that.

Then tell me why state/local PDs have to read your rights or you can take the 5th on the witness stand in a state/local court.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:10:10 PM EDT

[#16]

The idea of "incorporating" (most of) the BOR by the 14th Amendment was basically the SCOTUS saying, "The BOR applies to the states as well".

That is the law of the land.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:12:36 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,

1. No such word as "irregardless"
2. You misspelled the non-existant word
3. You are wrong. Like Mac said, if it only protects against the Feds, it is useless. if you live somewhere like CA or NY it is pretty much useless
4. Do you think that NY or CA can violate the 5th, for example? If they did, it would wind up in Federal court so fast your head would snap.If there is not a 5th like provivsion in thier State consitution they sure can. As for the Federal Court, that is whats wrong with the US today

For me in Missouri Firearm ownership pretty much mirrors the US law, and while Missouri has been getting more pro gun lately, and the US gov has been getting less and less pro gun, the 2nd admendment is still very important to me because for Missourians it still means something.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:17:27 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,
Thank God someone else understands what the constitution actually does.
By this absurd logic, the STATES can legally:

- ban all firearms
- confiscate property with no compensation
- search your home without warrant or cause
- jail people without charge or trial
- engage in double-jeopardy
- ignore grand jury requirements
- impose excessive fines
- force self-incrimination
- abolish all jury trials
- refuse the accused to have defense counsel
- inflict torture as punishment
- summarily execute people in the streets

Those are only prohibited by the BOR if done by the Federal Gov't. The states can choose to do any or all of the above it they want.

Yeah, that's what the Founding Fathers were thinking would be a good idea.

Yes the US goverment has no power to keep the states for doing this

Do you honestly believe that?

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:19:14 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,
Thank God someone else understands what the constitution actually does.
By this absurd logic, the STATES can legally:

- ban all firearms
- confiscate property with no compensation
- search your home without warrant or cause
- jail people without charge or trial
- engage in double-jeopardy
- ignore grand jury requirements
- impose excessive fines
- force self-incrimination
- abolish all jury trials
- refuse the accused to have defense counsel
- inflict torture as punishment
- summarily execute people in the streets

Those are only prohibited by the BOR if done by the Federal Gov't. The states can choose to do any or all of the above it they want.

Yeah, that's what the Founding Fathers were thinking would be a good idea.

Yes the US goverment has no power to keep the states for doing this

Do you honestly believe that?

Do you honestly not believe that?

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:27:26 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,
Thank God someone else understands what the constitution actually does.
By this absurd logic, the STATES can legally:

- ban all firearms
- confiscate property with no compensation
- search your home without warrant or cause
- jail people without charge or trial
- engage in double-jeopardy
- ignore grand jury requirements
- impose excessive fines
- force self-incrimination
- abolish all jury trials
- refuse the accused to have defense counsel
- inflict torture as punishment
- summarily execute people in the streets

Those are only prohibited by the BOR if done by the Federal Gov't. The states can choose to do any or all of the above it they want.

Yeah, that's what the Founding Fathers were thinking would be a good idea.

Yes the US goverment has no power to keep the states for doing this

Do you honestly believe that?

Do you honestly not believe that?

You can bet your ass the Federal government will enforce this, no matter how much you might scream about state's rights.

The Union stomped a bunch of rebel states over this same disagreement, don't think they wouldn't do it again.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:30:09 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you're grasping the concept of Federalism in the traditional sense of the word.

You have a right as a united states citizen to keep and bear arms. You also have many other rights as a United States citizen which are not mentioned by the Bill of Rights, but are still yours nonetheless.

However, you are not JUST a US citizen. You are also a citizen of your State. Though the Federal Government may not violate your second Amendment right, the state of California has a different constitution which tells its government what it may or may not do.

The FEDERAL constitution does not define or constrain the state governments except in those instances where it delegates authority specifically to the Federal government.

Therefore, no. California is not violating your rights as a US citizen. However, the state of California WOULD be violating its citizens rights under the California constitution IF the California state constitution included a RKBA as many other states do.

What you're saying is the BIll of Rights does not apply to everyone within the borders of the US. I don't think so.

That's like saying Iowa could outlaw the pratice of Islam within its borders as long as its state constitution has no freedom of religion provision.

All of the amendments apply to all of the states.

Exactly. Protected rights in the federal constitution are the minimum protections afforded to any citizen of the Union. States can provide legal protections for other rights, but they cannot legally and constitutionally violate the guaranteed rights of the federal constitution.

Thats a dangerous sentiment because it implies that before the constitution, people didn't have those rights.

Bear in mind that the reason for the Bill of Rights was not over fear of STATES infringing upon people's rights. It was over a fear of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing so.

And yes, I did answer Mac's question, you just weren't reading closely. The Constitution of the Federal government is exactly that. It says what the Federal government may or may not do.

You can quote the actual Amendments all day long and say "Look it doesn't say 'Federal'" but that doesn't change the fact that the document's entire reason for existence is to define the Federal Government.

eta: and I'm through arguing this point. I can't make you understand what the constitution does or why it was written. All my arguing will not enlighten you if you don't want to learn. This edit was not meant to piss off anyone. Please take it in the spirit in which it was given.

Hello, McFly?!? What YOU'RE implying is that my rights don't exist unless the state government grants them to me!

States don't have rights. People do. And if the state infringes upon my rights as guaranteed by the federal Constitution, they are VERY MUCH SO in the wrong.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:30:56 PM EDT

[#22]

If thats how the goverment is suppost to work they we don't have a repuplic we have a Dictatorship ran by 1 Presisdent, 100 senators, some 450ish Reps and some old Supreme Court justises(sp?).

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:32:29 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,
Thank God someone else understands what the constitution actually does.
By this absurd logic, the STATES can legally:

- ban all firearms
- confiscate property with no compensation
- search your home without warrant or cause
- jail people without charge or trial
- engage in double-jeopardy
- ignore grand jury requirements
- impose excessive fines
- force self-incrimination
- abolish all jury trials
- refuse the accused to have defense counsel
- inflict torture as punishment
- summarily execute people in the streets

Those are only prohibited by the BOR if done by the Federal Gov't. The states can choose to do any or all of the above it they want.

Yeah, that's what the Founding Fathers were thinking would be a good idea.

Yes the US goverment has no power to keep the states for doing this

Do you honestly believe that?

Do you honestly not believe that?

You're saying the Bill of Rights and ALL the other 17 amendments mean nothing unless they're identically reflected within your own state's constitution.

Sorry, but that's complete and utter horseshit.

Why is it that schools were forced to integrate?
Why are cases CONTINUALLY brought to the Supreme Court where someone's constitutional rights have been violated?

The ONLY reason SLAVERY, for example is forbidden in every state is due to the 13th Amendment.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:32:31 PM EDT

[#24]

The government has become to PC, corporate, and complacent to do anything to keep the states in line. The government has gotten too big, and the country has become pussywhipped when it comes to standing up and making things right.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:32:54 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:
If thats how the goverment is suppost to work they we don't have a repuplic we have a Dictatorship ran by 1 Presisdent, 100 senators, some 450ish Reps and some old Supreme Court justises(sp?).

That's why we vote for them. Hellllo, is anyone home?

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:34:28 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you're grasping the concept of Federalism in the traditional sense of the word.

You have a right as a united states citizen to keep and bear arms. You also have many other rights as a United States citizen which are not mentioned by the Bill of Rights, but are still yours nonetheless.

However, you are not JUST a US citizen. You are also a citizen of your State. Though the Federal Government may not violate your second Amendment right, the state of California has a different constitution which tells its government what it may or may not do.

The FEDERAL constitution does not define or constrain the state governments except in those instances where it delegates authority specifically to the Federal government.

Therefore, no. California is not violating your rights as a US citizen. However, the state of California WOULD be violating its citizens rights under the California constitution IF the California state constitution included a RKBA as many other states do.

What you're saying is the BIll of Rights does not apply to everyone within the borders of the US. I don't think so.

That's like saying Iowa could outlaw the pratice of Islam within its borders as long as its state constitution has no freedom of religion provision.

All of the amendments apply to all of the states.

Exactly. Protected rights in the federal constitution are the minimum protections afforded to any citizen of the Union. States can provide legal protections for other rights, but they cannot legally and constitutionally violate the guaranteed rights of the federal constitution.

Thats a dangerous sentiment because it implies that before the constitution, people didn't have those rights.

Bear in mind that the reason for the Bill of Rights was not over fear of STATES infringing upon people's rights. It was over a fear of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing so.

And yes, I did answer Mac's question, you just weren't reading closely. The Constitution of the Federal government is exactly that. It says what the Federal government may or may not do.

You can quote the actual Amendments all day long and say "Look it doesn't say 'Federal'" but that doesn't change the fact that the document's entire reason for existence is to define the Federal Government.

eta: and I'm through arguing this point. I can't make you understand what the constitution does or why it was written. All my arguing will not enlighten you if you don't want to learn. This edit was not meant to piss off anyone. Please take it in the spirit in which it was given.

Hello, McFly?!? What YOU'RE implying is that my rights don't exist unless the state government grants them to me!

States don't have rights. People do. And if the state infringes upon my rights as guaranteed by the federal Constitution, they are VERY MUCH SO in the wrong.

You have your rights as a human being but unless your state has laws protecting those rights, The state can voilate them.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:34:43 PM EDT

[#27]

The states are getting away with it because they are being allowed to. It may not be right, but it's happening. "What can I do to stop it"?
(loading firearms)

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:37:35 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:
If ~~thats~~ that's how the goverment is ~~suppost~~ supposed to work ~~they~~ then we don't have a ~~repuplic~~ republicwe have a Dictatorship ~~ran~~ run by 1 ~~Presisdent~~ President, 100 senators, some ~~450ish~~ 435 Reps and some old Supreme Court ~~justises~~ Justices (sp?).

No, it's a republic because the citizens have elected government officials to represent them.

You're welcome for the grammatical and spelling corrections.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:38:03 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,
Thank God someone else understands what the constitution actually does.
By this absurd logic, the STATES can legally:

- ban all firearms
- confiscate property with no compensation
- search your home without warrant or cause
- jail people without charge or trial
- engage in double-jeopardy
- ignore grand jury requirements
- impose excessive fines
- force self-incrimination
- abolish all jury trials
- refuse the accused to have defense counsel
- inflict torture as punishment
- summarily execute people in the streets

Those are only prohibited by the BOR if done by the Federal Gov't. The states can choose to do any or all of the above it they want.

Yeah, that's what the Founding Fathers were thinking would be a good idea.

Yes the US goverment has no power to keep the states for doing this

Do you honestly believe that?

Do you honestly not believe that?

You're saying the Bill of Rights and ALL the other 17 amendments mean nothing unless they're identically reflected within your own state's constitution.

Sorry, but that's complete and utter horseshit.

Why is it that schools were forced to integrate?
Why are cases CONTINUALLY brought to the Supreme Court where someone's constitutional rights have been violated?

The ONLY reason SLAVERY, for example is forbidden in every state is due to the 13th Amendment.

Yes If your State restricts your freedom by not protecting your US consitution rights under thier law . then the Rights protected under the US consitution mean nothing to you.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:39:10 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If ~~thats~~ that's how the goverment is ~~suppost~~ supposed to work ~~they~~ then we don't have a ~~repuplic~~ republicwe have a Dictatorship ~~ran~~ run by 1 ~~Presisdent~~ President, 100 senators, some ~~450ish~~ 435 Reps and some old Supreme Court ~~justises~~ Justices (sp?).

No, it's a republic because the citizens have elected government officials to represent them.

You're welcome for the grammatical and spelling corrections.

Thank you, when are we going to get spell check work so I don't look as stupid.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:39:47 PM EDT

[#31]

I guess the clinton AWB had no impact on you guys sicne it's only federal.

That's just ignorance saying that the federal government is powerless over the state governments. And after the state supreme courts it can go national if you're not suing the state.

I forgot we're not US citizens we're state citizens first. I guess all the states have succeeded already according to your logic.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:41:26 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Quoted:
You're saying the Bill of Rights and ALL the other 17 amendments mean nothing unless they're identically reflected within your own state's constitution.

Sorry, but that's complete and utter horseshit.

Why is it that schools were forced to integrate?
Why are cases CONTINUALLY brought to the Supreme Court where someone's constitutional rights have been violated?

The ONLY reason SLAVERY, for example is forbidden in every state is due to the 13th Amendment.

Yes If your State restricts your freedom by not protecting your US consitution rights under thier law . then the Rights protected under the US consitution mean nothing to you.

I'm sorry, but reality seems to disagree with you.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:43:55 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
I guess the clinton AWB had no impact on you guys sicne it's only federal. That's just ignorance saying that the federal government is powerless over the state governments. And after the state supreme courts it can go national if you're not suing the state.

No it did.

The bill of rights and the laws of the US are what define the highest level of freedom and liberty with the USA, The states can only be restrictive of your freedom they cannot allow you to be more free than what the US gov would.

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:45:44 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're saying the Bill of Rights and ALL the other 17 amendments mean nothing unless they're identically reflected within your own state's constitution.

Sorry, but that's complete and utter horseshit.

Why is it that schools were forced to integrate?
Why are cases CONTINUALLY brought to the Supreme Court where someone's constitutional rights have been violated?

The ONLY reason SLAVERY, for example is forbidden in every state is due to the 13th Amendment.

Yes If your State restricts your freedom by not protecting your US consitution rights under thier law . then the Rights protected under the US consitution mean nothing to you.

I'm sorry, but reality seems to disagree with you.

You are probly right about reality and the way things are done today.

EDIT:

No, You right that is not the way it works nowdays and maybe the way it has always worked but thats way it was mean to work and the way it should work.

I'm afraid the only way to fix it would be a COC voilation

Posted: 8/5/2005 2:54:45 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

You have your rights as a human being but unless your state has laws protecting those rights, The state can voilate them.

They can try. But the federal government will be on my side, for once. And they've got bigger guns than me.

Posted: 8/5/2005 3:52:17 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't think you're grasping the concept of Federalism in the traditional sense of the word.

You have a right as a united states citizen to keep and bear arms. You also have many other rights as a United States citizen which are not mentioned by the Bill of Rights, but are still yours nonetheless.

However, you are not JUST a US citizen. You are also a citizen of your State. Though the Federal Government may not violate your second Amendment right, the state of California has a different constitution which tells its government what it may or may not do.

The FEDERAL constitution does not define or constrain the state governments except in those instances where it delegates authority specifically to the Federal government.

Therefore, no. California is not violating your rights as a US citizen. However, the state of California WOULD be violating its citizens rights under the California constitution IF the California state constitution included a RKBA as many other states do.

What you're saying is the BIll of Rights does not apply to everyone within the borders of the US. I don't think so.

That's like saying Iowa could outlaw the pratice of Islam within its borders as long as its state constitution has no freedom of religion provision.

All of the amendments apply to all of the states.

Exactly. Protected rights in the federal constitution are the minimum protections afforded to any citizen of the Union. States can provide legal protections for other rights, but they cannot legally and constitutionally violate the guaranteed rights of the federal constitution.

Thats a dangerous sentiment because it implies that before the constitution, people didn't have those rights.

Bear in mind that the reason for the Bill of Rights was not over fear of STATES infringing upon people's rights. It was over a fear of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT doing so.

And yes, I did answer Mac's question, you just weren't reading closely. The Constitution of the Federal government is exactly that. It says what the Federal government may or may not do.

You can quote the actual Amendments all day long and say "Look it doesn't say 'Federal'" but that doesn't change the fact that the document's entire reason for existence is to define the Federal Government.

eta: and I'm through arguing this point. I can't make you understand what the constitution does or why it was written. All my arguing will not enlighten you if you don't want to learn. This edit was not meant to piss off anyone. Please take it in the spirit in which it was given.

You can say that you are through arguing or that you have addressed a certain question. Well, you haven't.

Very simply, do the states have the right to violate all the other amendments besides the 2nd (which you seem to think they can) in the Bill of Rights? Yes or no.

Yes

And they Arnt violating any thing
To the state the BOR doesn't legaly exsit.

So, the states just follow those things because they WANT do?

Posted: 8/5/2005 3:55:08 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
States Rights

the 2nd admendment only protects your right to keep and bear arms from the federal goverment. The State can do whatever they want under there consistution, irregaurdless of the US consistution.,

1. No such word as "irregardless"
2. You misspelled the non-existant word
3. You are wrong. Like Mac said, if it only protects against the Feds, it is useless. if you live somewhere like CA or NY it is pretty much useless
4. Do you think that NY or CA can violate the 5th, for example? If they did, it would wind up in Federal court so fast your head would snap.If there is not a 5th like provivsion in thier State consitution they sure can. As for the Federal Court, that is whats wrong with the US today

For me in Missouri Firearm ownership pretty much mirrors the US law, and while Missouri has been getting more pro gun lately, and the US gov has been getting less and less pro gun, the 2nd admendment is still very important to me because for Missourians it still means something.

You keep thinking that if you wish, it is you who are wrong.

Posted: 8/5/2005 3:57:04 PM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:
If thats how the goverment is suppost to work they we don't have a repuplic we have a Dictatorship ran by 1 Presisdent, 100 senators, some 450ish Reps and some old Supreme Court justises(sp?).

What the fuck??????????????? That has nothing to do with what we are discussing and makes no sense anyway.

Posted: 8/5/2005 3:58:49 PM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If ~~thats~~ that's how the goverment is ~~suppost~~ supposed to work ~~they~~ then we don't have a ~~repuplic~~ republicwe have a Dictatorship ~~ran~~ run by 1 ~~Presisdent~~ President, 100 senators, some ~~450ish~~ 435 Reps and some old Supreme Court ~~justises~~ Justices (sp?).

No, it's a republic because the citizens have elected government officials to represent them.

You're welcome for the grammatical and spelling corrections.

Thank you, when are we going to get spell check work so I don't look as stupid.

Sorry, your argument already does that for you.

Posted: 8/5/2005 5:50:17 PM EDT

[#40]

Quoted:
-When will America invade and liberate California?

After Iran, N. Korea, Mexico, and Canada....

Posted: 8/5/2005 6:03:43 PM EDT

[#41]

If the US constitution can protect my right to keep and bear arms no matter what state I'm in, or the state can't violate my 2nd admendment because its protected by the US constitution, then why does the Missouri constitution have this:

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Why even have it if its protected by the all powerful US constitution.

Why does my State constitution also protect my right of free speech(Article 1 Sec8)
Most of the other admendments are also covered under the Missouri Constitution

Posted: 8/5/2005 6:09:41 PM EDT

[#42]

Section 4. That Missouri is a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States; that all proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States qualifying or affecting the individual liberties of the people or which in any wise may impair the right of local self-government belonging to the people of this state, should be submitted to conventions of the people.

This is the part of the Missouri Constitution that allowed the Concealed Carry exception to the right to keep and bear arms of Missouri citizens. Yeah the US constitution applies to the State of Missouri unless the People elect it otherwise.

Posted: 8/5/2005 6:17:53 PM EDT

[#43]

Back on to the topic of California

from their Declaration of Rights

"SEC. 24. Rights guaranteed by this Constitution are not dependent
on those guaranteed by the United States Constitution."

California has nothing even close to a law protecting "The poeples right to keep and bear arms"

Posted: 8/5/2005 8:49:44 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:
If the US constitution can protect my right to keep and bear arms no matter what state I'm in, or the state can't violate my 2nd admendment because its protected by the US constitution, then why does the Missouri constitution have this:

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Why even have it if its protected by the all powerful US constitution.

Why does my State constitution also protect my right of free speech(Article 1 Sec8)
Most of the other admendments are also covered under the Missouri Constitution

Seriously, you just don't get it, do you?

State constitutional protections for free speech, RKBA, etc. are state-level protections that are put in place as a redundancy. If, God forbid, the BOR (which apparently doesn't do anything anyway according to you) was repealed on the federal level, state constitutions already have protections in place that guarantee rights above and beyond the (then lower) federal constitutional requirement.

I think it's amazing that you seem to be so anti-fed, yet you believe that state governments have the power to trample your freedom and ignore the federal Constitution's protections of your rights. If things worked the way you believe them to, then absolute tyranny would be at the hands of your all-powerful state governments.

The ONLY way to ensure individual rights is if individuals rights are protected from the highest level of government on down, and that ALL protections are enforceable and, well, enforced whether those protections come from the federal, state, or local governments.

That is unless of course you think that governmentally-recognized and guaranteed rights are a bad thing and you have too many of them, in which case, I can't help you. However, your comments above about a dictatorship etc. kind of point in the direction that you're a die-hard states rights sort of guy. See, I'm a die hard "my rights" sort of guy, states don't have any rights, and certainly can not stomp on mine when the federal government guarantees that they cannot be infringed upon.

Of course, the bastards break those rules every day, but that's how it's supposed to work.

Posted: 8/5/2005 9:19:28 PM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Quoted:
If the US constitution can protect my right to keep and bear arms no matter what state I'm in, or the state can't violate my 2nd admendment because its protected by the US constitution, then why does the Missouri constitution have this:

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

Why even have it if its protected by the all powerful US constitution.

Why does my State constitution also protect my right of free speech(Article 1 Sec8)
Most of the other admendments are also covered under the Missouri Constitution

Seriously, you just don't get it, do you?

State constitutional protections for free speech, RKBA, etc. are state-level protections that are put in place as a redundancy. If, God forbid, the BOR (which apparently doesn't do anything anyway according to you) was repealed on the federal level, state constitutions already have protections in place that guarantee rights above and beyond the (then lower) federal constitutional requirement.

I think it's amazing that you seem to be so anti-fed, yet you believe that state governments have the power to trample your freedom and ignore the federal Constitution's protections of your rights. If things worked the way you believe them to, then absolute tyranny would be at the hands of your all-powerful state governments.

The ONLY way to ensure individual rights is if individuals rights are protected from the highest level of government on down, and that ALL protections are enforceable and, well, enforced whether those protections come from the federal, state, or local governments.

That is unless of course you think that governmentally-recognized and guaranteed rights are a bad thing and you have too many of them, in which case, I can't help you. However, your comments above about a dictatorship etc. kind of point in the direction that you're a die-hard states rights sort of guy. See, I'm a die hard "my rights" sort of guy, states don't have any rights, and certainly can not stomp on mine when the federal government guarantees that they cannot be infringed upon.

Of course, the bastards break those rules every day, but that's how it's supposed to work.

You imply a heirarchical relationship between the state governments and federal government where none exists. Federalism is a PARALLEL arrangement. Not superior/subordinate.

Well, it does now. But it didn't when the Federal Government was still constrained by the constitution...

Posted: 8/5/2005 9:28:28 PM EDT

[#46]

Im not really a huge states rights guy.
Its just easier to have states like Montana and states like CA . It makes it easier to move to state you can live with rather than tring the force the entire US into adopting the same laws.

thats all

everything i have said has been kind of a long rant about how the goverment is fubar and your right its pretty incoeherent.

I just dissatisfied in the direction america has been heading i don't know what i can do to fix it

EDIT

What 1Andy2 said./\/\/\

Posted: 8/5/2005 10:29:41 PM EDT

[#47]

ok here it is

The 2nd admendment is supossed to keep congress (or any other part of the federal govt) from creating a law that infringes on your right to keep and bear arms. It however cannot keep your state from creating a law that infringes on your RKBA.

That also applies to all of the other admendments as well.

Posted: 8/5/2005 10:38:41 PM EDT

[#48]

Quoted:
Federalism is a PARALLEL arrangement. Not superior/subordinate.

Not as far as the Court system goes.

All courts of law are subordinate to the SCOTUS.

As far as the idea that none of the BOR apply to the states - as of the past 50 years or more, they do. So let's deal with reality.

But my question for those who believe the FFs INTENDED for the BOR to apply ONLY to the FedGov, since such an idea is NOWHERE written in the BOR - can any of you support such a position using major writings from the FFs during the time the Constitution and BOR were created? Like is there anything in the Federalist or anti-federalist papers to support such a claim that NONE of the rights protected by the BOR are protected against state intrusion?

Posted: 8/6/2005 12:08:30 AM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Federalism is a PARALLEL arrangement. Not superior/subordinate.
Not as far as the Court system goes.

All courts of law are subordinate to the SCOTUS.

As far as the idea that none of the BOR apply to the states - as of the past 50 years or more, they do. So let's deal with reality.

But my question for those who believe the FFs INTENDED for the BOR to apply ONLY to the FedGov, since such an idea is NOWHERE written in the BOR - can any of you support such a position using major writings from the FFs during the time the Constitution and BOR were created? Like is there anything in the Federalist or anti-federalist papers to support such a claim that NONE of the rights protected by the BOR are protected against state intrusion?

It isn't written in the BOR because the entire constitution was written as a document constituting the federal government. Not the state governments. How many different ways can I say this?

Oh, and federalism doesn't mean that the Federal government's laws are more powerful than the State's; it means that the Federal government has powers within a certain defined area, as DEFINED by the States in a constitution which the STATES ratifed.

The supreme court is a branch of the federal government. According to the constitution, in theory it can only rule in cases wherein the federal government has jurisdiction. It can't, for example, rule whether a california law violates the california constitution.

It sounds like you really don't understand the principles of federalism. Ignore the word "federal" and just think of it as a constitutionally delegated confederation of state governments with a national government supreme in a tiny fraction of powers and the state governments supreme in all others.

Posted: 8/6/2005 7:29:31 AM EDT

[#50]

Well since I'm no lawyer and/or no constitutional expert, I'm qualified to talk out of my ass too.

Let's go to the source. What do you all think THIS means:

Amendment 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.

Says to me exactly what 1Andy2 is saying. That the Constitution is limited in the ways he'd describing.

Anybody actually READ the Constitution?

The Constitution

How about all these amendments?

The Amendments

Give it a try.

YMMV... yada yada, yada... Hollywood Inn... etc.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Does California Violate MY Rights As A US CItizen...? (Page 2 of 3)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us