Why California and other States have Antigun Laws
I have wonder how they get away with these insane laws , after all we have the Nations Constitution that should stop them Plus the individual states Constitutions . Or do we ?
I have been looking up the Constitutions of many states and finally got around to looking at California's and it is only the second state that I can not find the Right to Arms for the individual citizen , joined only by the state of New York which we know also has moronic laws .
Cali has one of the most long winded , useless babbling going on and on about the right of speech I have ever seen yet I didn't find the Right to arms .
Admittedly I only skimmed it but then again all I did was skim the others and it was a right easily found .
Here are example of what other States have to say in no particular order
Deleware § 20. Right to keep and bear arms.
Section 20. 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.
State of Illinois , SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
Ohio § 1.04 Bearing arms; standing armies; military powers (1851)
[ View Article Table of Contents ]
The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power
Missouri 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.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.
Section 21 . Right to Bear Arms
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned
Vermont Article 16. [Right to bear arms; standing armies; military power subordinate to civil]
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
And on and on it goes with the exception of New Jersy which also has some moronic laws "I just looked at their constitution for the first time" .
If you want to look all of this up for yourself be prepared for dead links and all kinds of PITA's , seems like they really don't want a citizen to know their Rights , imagine that .
Hope this has been informative and interesting to few folks .
I actually did find that informative. Thank you for posting.
I have essentially given up on California. My wife and I are moving to Oregon by Christmas. It will be nice to be back in America. :o
Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.
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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.
NC also has CCW. :)
This is North Carolina.
Of course, that's a load of hooey, and there is no shortage of legal precedent to support that contention. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and no government body at any level may deprive people of rights defined in the Bill of Rights.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 in Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105 that it is illegal for a government agency to require that a citizen pay a fee in order for them to engage in a right acknowledged by the Bill of Rights. Specifically, the ruling read:
A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.'So why do I have to pay nearly $200 and wait six months to a year to get a handgun permit in Monroe County in New York State?
When the law is so "nuanced" and complicated that opposite rulings on essentially the same matter are both "legal", we cease to have a system of laws that works to our benefit.
Thanks for the info on the state constitutions. That's useful and interesting.
They have those laws because we don't march on the capitols and demand their repeal.
Seriously, government left untended will do whatever it damn well pleases. An apathetic electorate is its own worst enemy. (See my sig for details.)
We all know all any "Law" is nothing more than an rule agreed upon by those we have given power over us yet how ironic it is even when the majority disagree with a law and want it's destruction or wish the creation of one those same people couldn't give a damn what we want .
How sad that the citizens of the newly formed union in 1776 should have been more comfortable with exercising the Rights of their Second Amendment instead of the First if they had we would never have found ourselves in the present mess with corrupt leaders everywhere we look . "Yes I know the Constitution didn't yet exist"
So ridiculous it is that even when the Supremes finally strike down some absurd Law that the makers act as if nothing happened and they merrily pass another law that is only a fraction from being identical to the one just struck down and they begin wasting precious millions and violating rights all over again .
While I know it sounds silly I have always thought that the Supreme Court should control it's own special enforcement section almost like that in the Movie "Judge Dred" For instance with the Heller case assuming it goes the way it should affirming that we do indeed have the Right to Bear Arms .
Within seconds of the judgment being released we will have scum such as Paul Helmke and others running their mouths describing what other angles they will use to destroy our rights , at that moment the Supreme Enforcement section should show up with a long flatbed truck filled with gallows and begin rounding them up one by one and slow hanging them right there in public , or perhaps simply dosing them with gasoline and lighting on fire , hmm no gasoline is far to expensive now to waste on trash like Helmke isn't it ?
Once a Right has indeed been reaffirmed by court ruling anyone attempting to violate it should be arrested convicted and hanged for treason against the nations founding rights of the citizens , First Amendment be damned !!
Free speech for the purpose of destroying the union and making us once again subjects of a new tyrants wasn't exactly what the founders had in mind .
|All times are GMT. The time now is 10:28 PM.|
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.