Quoted:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


I am reading through at the moment, and it made me think. Wouldn't the FREE STATE in fact mean that any and all firearms laws should be left solely to the state?
Wouldn't that mean that any federal laws are actually unconstitutional? When did this change? So If say, the people of California voted to ban all weapons, But Florida voted to allow unrestricted FA weapons. THIS in fact is the way the founding fathers actually meant it? So by making any Federal firearms laws, They are actually treading in a jurisdiction that according to the constitution. They have no right to tread? Am I off base?

Forgive me for asking, But I am just trying to understand more in depth.

Quoted:
"free state" as in a state of being, maybe?  

Quoted:
"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"


I am reading through at the moment, and it made me think. Wouldn't the FREE STATE in fact mean that any and all firearms laws should be left solely to the state?
Wouldn't that mean that any federal laws are actually unconstitutional? When did this change? So If say, the people of California voted to ban all weapons, But Florida voted to allow unrestricted FA weapons. THIS in fact is the way the founding fathers actually meant it? So by making any Federal firearms laws, They are actually treading in a jurisdiction that according to the constitution. They have no right to tread? Am I off base?

Forgive me for asking, But I am just trying to understand more in depth.

Quoted:
"free state" as in a state of being, maybe?  

Quoted:
"Free" as compared to a dictatorship, not free as in, we can do anything we want. And the 14th Amendment restricts states from forming their own opinion about the Constitution.

ETA: When they say "state" they mean the country as a whole.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary of a free state,the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

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.

Quoted:
Some folks REALLY need to read the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. Especially those that think the BOR applies to anything other than the federal government.

Quoted:


Maybe so, but things have changed. The 14th Amendment was added, which binds the BoR (and other Constitutional rights) to the states and judicial precedent has created rights and powers not included in The Constitution and bound the states to those rights and powers as well.

Quoted:
....
I am reading through at the moment, and it made me think. Wouldn't the FREE STATE in fact mean that any and all firearms laws should be left solely to the state?

Wouldn't that mean that any federal laws are actually unconstitutional?
When did this change?

So If say, the people of California voted to ban all weapons, But Florida voted to allow unrestricted FA weapons. THIS in fact is the way the founding fathers actually meant it?

Am I off base?

Quoted:
In District of Columbia vs. Heller the Supreme Court decided that the government can ban unusually dangerous weapons and that they can restrict certain classes of people from owning firearms, such as convicted felons and mental defectives.

So, no, under that decision the Federal Government does have broad powers to impact the second amendment.

Also, under another case that is currently working it's way to the Supreme Court, they are going to determine whether or not state infringements on the second amendment are or are not acceptable. So, the Federal Government could become the ruling power when it comes to the second amendment, leaving the states out to dry.

Quoted:


"free state" as in a state of being, maybe?  

Quoted:


ill conceived modifications, as well as misconstructions and misinterpretations, of the constitution and/or bill of rights are the reason government is in it's current state.

ETA: not that I think either document or the men who wrote them had it even 50% correct.

Quoted:



They shouldn't be. States shouldn't be able to limit the Federal Constitution, but be able to make their own laws around it. This is in my opinion.

Pretty sure that is how it was intended to be anyways.

Quoted:
I guess what I dont understand is, If our founding fathers wanted us to have this right to protect ourselves from an oppressive government, Why and how can our government, Weather it be state,local, or federal, Limit what we can and cannot have? It just seems to me that the mear fact that they want to limit gun ownership, Or keep certain types of weapons out of our hands, is exactly what we were meant to be protected from. If the federal government doesnt protect the right, And the states are not meant to protect the right, then WHO?

Quoted:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freeState, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not beinfringed.

A well educated civil service, being necessary to the smooth running ofa free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shallnot be infringed.

Shall not be infringed. By anyone.  

Quoted:


I'm just telling you the way that things ARE.

Quoted:
The OP is correct…
It would seem that he did a little independent thinking and came up with the correct answer despite all of the propaganda flying around.

If you read Madison’s records on the Constitutional convention, he attempted to create a (national) government or a federal government with nationalistic powers several times and was shot down. (He wanted the federal government to be able to hold a negative over state law at will… sorry but, he didn’t get it)

Also, if you read the record of the first congress (when they drafted the Bill of Rights) you will see that Madison tried again to have the Bill of Rights applied to the states.
He won in the House, but was shot down in the Senate. (Again, fail for the nationalists)
If Madison would have had his way, we would have established a “national” government, but we didn’t… we established a “federal” government…(look up the difference between the two)

So, the actual, historical fact is that the Bill of Rights is only a limit on the newly created federal government. (And by the way… the 14th Amendment DID NOT change that)

But don’t take my word for it, read Madison’s accounts of the Convention, read the ratification debates, read the record of the first congress pertaining to the drafting and ratification of the Bill of Rights… read the actual historical accounts of what was done and stay away from bull-shit commentary from liberal professors and unconstitutional Supreme Court decisions.

When people quote prior supreme court cases that are inconsistent with the rule of law as prescribed by the constitution they forget to realize that an incorrect decision does not an Amendment make… It does not change the rule of law… It does not change the Constitution… It does not follow!

Stare decisis (Latin: Let the decision stand) does not change the text or the intent of the Constitution as it was written and ratified.
If the Supreme Court ruled that the president was now a king and that his son would be the next king and so on… would that stand?
No, of course not…
why? Because the ruling would be unconstitutional.
Allowing the philosophy of Stare decisis to trump the rule of law as written in the constitution is an affront to the very purpose of its drafting, reducing us to nothing more than a banana republic…  

The only powers that the federal government rightfully possesses are those few, limited, specific, enumerated powers that are granted to it under Article-1 Section-8… and regulating firearms isn’t one of them.
The only powers that are prohibited to the states are those few, limited, specific, enumerated powers that are listed in Article-1 Section-10… and dealing with firearms in their own way isn’t one of the powers that are prohibited.
(Look it up… the constitution is lighter reading than most comic books)

Ahhhh yes… then there will be those of you who will cite the (commerce clause)

Well, let me cite it for you:

“Article-1, Section-8, Subsection-3:

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”

Notice the wording of the phrase “among the several States”, specifically the use of the word “among” as opposed to the word “of”…
This was no mistake, it was intentional, as the use of the word among would imply the “act” of trade… not the “items” traded.
One of the main reasons that the convention was held in the first place was the fact that states were acting in a way that was destructive to the economy, and one of the specific problems was the lack of a free trade environment (example: one state would trade freely with its neighbor to the south, but not with the its neighbor to the north; the state to the south would not be required to pay duties and tariffs while the state to the north would.

The purpose of the commerce clause was to put an end to this and compel every state to engage in free trade with all of the states in the union and to give congress the power to ensure that free trade was taking place.
This clause was never intended to give congress the power to regulate the specific items that were traded.
Had the framers intended to give congress the power to regulate the actual items that were traded they surely would have use the wording “Commerce––-of the several states” instead of the wording “Commerce––- among the several states”.
Also, the account of the ratification debates makes it clear that promoting free trade was the intent, not regulating the items traded… again… read it for yourself.

And how in the world people can read the 9th and 10th amendments and come to the conclusion that the federal government has the rightful power to operate outside of the few, limited, specific, enumerated powers that were granted to it by the states via the constitution is beyond all rational thinking!

“Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Notice: “retained by the people”… not “by the government”!


“Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.”

Pretty frickin’ clear… “if we didn’t give the feds the power… they don’t have the power… and if we didn’t prohibit the power to the states… then the states or the people are assumed to have the power”

Another way of saying it would be: “the powers granted to the federal government are few and enumerated; likewise, the limits on the states are few and enumerated… the federal powers are few and greatly limited and the powers of the states are so vast that they are nearly immeasurable”


And then you will have those who will attempt to cite the supremacy clause in there defense, so let’s tackle that one while were at it…

“Article-6 Section-2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

If you can’t see it for yourself then I suggest you read it again…
Specifically the wording “which shall be made in Pursuance thereof”…
Meaning only laws that are made that are in accordance to the Constitution…
So, if a law is made that is NOT in accordance with the Constitution would it be the supreme law of the land?.... clearly, NO!… you would consider it to be “notwithstanding”… “Not able to stand”… moot… void… garbage… not worth the paper it was printed on… PERIOD.

Except that really isn't any limitation at all since what is, and what isn't, constitutional or "in pursuance thereof" is wide open to interpretation. It was a defective framework for any government, and they knew it had many defects when they called for it's ratification.

And to those of you who think that the Constitution grants the people the right to keep and bear arms….

The Constitution doesn’t grant any rights… not a single one… neither do any of the amendments… your rights existed before the constitution… you possess these rights by the very nature of your existence… nothing more needed.
The this nation was established to be a protector of these rights and the documents that were drafted that granted existence to our governmental bodies were drafted to prevent said governments from trespassing on these rights… Not to grant them!

Definition of unalienable rights:
(incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred <see also: inalienable rights>)


Another defense of state sovereignty…
The Declaration of Independence IS our founding document… all else is supplemental.
But, what did it declare? The one profound thing that is declared amidst all the language is this:
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.”

Emphasis added to:
“That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States”

As far as I can tell the Declaration of Independence has NEVER been repealed.

The meaning of the word “states” at the time of its drafting held the same meaning as our modern day understanding of the word “country”.

Nothing in the articles of confederation repealed this declaration, just as nothing in the Constitution repealed this declaration.

The fact is that the states are sovereign, free and independent members of a union; free to govern themselves in all matters except for those few that were agreed to by the states as defined in Article-1 Section-10 of the Constitution.

THESE ARE THE FACTS…

And to quote John Adams:
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

Imagine if the Constitution said…

“A well informed populace, being necessary to the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”

…then the Amendment would correctly be interpreted to allow people to own and read books. It would not just preserve the right of a state to have a public library. It would be seen as an individual right. Similarly the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right that neither the Federal Government nor the states can legitimately infringe.

However… IF you accepted the collective interpretation of the Second Amendment which claims the Amendment only gave states the right to have a militia, THEN you would be correct. The states would have every right to decide who was in their militia, what they were armed with, and under what conditions the members of the militia would be allowed to possess their weapons. The Second Amendment would absolutely block any Federal regulations or restrictions. Massachusetts could ban all guns and Alabama could let 16 year olds drive fully armed Bradley IFVs complete with the 25mm cannon and TOW missiles if they wanted. Under this interpretation all Federal gun laws would be unconstitutional.