Second Amendment

[colossians323]

After reading the Mak 90 thread, in detail, and the other threads regarding Cal Legal guns, I am wondering how the States can regulate a federal or Constitutional Amendment, without havingg to go through the Amending process.
If we have the right to keep and bear arms, why is it in California you have one law, and in New Jersey, you have another, and in New York yet another.
Its a little confusing to me how any of this holds up in court since in the Second Amendment they are talking about the "People".
Who are the " People"?
Are the "People" the Government?
Is it the Government who has granted us our rights, or are they supposed to just be the defender of our rights?
This really perplexes me.
Why did abortion become some new found right in the mid seventies?
NOw it is such a huge constitutional right, that even abortion at nine months can't be infringed.
How is it our gun rights are being infringed, and the people, and the courts put up with it?

[blacklisted]

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.

The states are given some power. Besides, the courts rule that the laws do not violate the second amendment because they are not taking all guns, just specific ones. Also, the US supreme court has never ruled on the second amendment. There is debate whether or not it applies to individuals.

I don't think the United States is a democracy, it is a constitutional republic or representative republic or something like that...I forgot. But what we do is vote people into office who are supposed to represent the majority of the people (they vote on issues intead of us all voting directly). THe trouble with this is, we have a two party system, and when you have something split 52/50, that's not exactly a majority, which leaves people discontented.


Amendment IX

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

[Librarian]

The other influence is the 9th Circuit maintains the traditional attitude that the Constitution generally governs actions of the Federal government only, not the states. That's why California has its AW law - Fresno Rifle and Pistol Club, Inc., v. Van de Camp, 965 F.2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992)
This is the NRA challenge to the Calif Roberti-Roos AW ban, decided in 1992. They lost. The court said, agreeing with the Morton Grove case, that the 2nd amendment didn't apply to states. And they said the law wasn't a bill of attainder, as listing banned guns wasn't punishment, in the meaning that has from the Supreme Court. And they also tried a novel argument, that as the law banned the "Colt AR-15 Sporter" and that was one of very few rifles usable in the DCM competition program, the Calif. law was pre-empted by the federal CMP program. The court disagreed, saying one could still compete with M1 rifles, and M14 rifles (M1A's I guess).Bardwell's site (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/cases1.html)

[jnojr]

After reading the Mak 90 thread, in detail, and the other threads regarding Cal Legal guns, I am wondering how the States can regulate a federal or Constitutional Amendment, without havingg to go through the Amending process.

Because the Supreme Court of the US has never held that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Silly, huh?

If we have the right to keep and bear arms, why is it in California you have one law, and in New Jersey, you have another, and in New York yet another.

Because some states have enforcible RKBA in their Constitution. Some Circuit Courts have held that 2A is an individual right.

In CA, we have neither, which is why we need more volunteers for http://www.reformcagunlaws.com/

[Charliegone]

Plus we have idiots who say we only have a "collective" right to keep and bear arms. Wasn't this country founded on individual rights? When I look at the classical conservative vs. the classical liberal (remember that word classical now, not the new kinds) there is clearly the idea of individualism in it. Competition, Earning rank, no censorship, those are the ideals of founders of our country. Now a days we are getting this "collective" right crap and that we do not have the right to keep our property or even keep our own arms. I'll tell you where this "collective" crap is coming from. Socialists.:mad:

[shopkeep]

Here's where it gets _REALLY_ Scary:

The PRK style of banning guns is by making such a complex and vague web of gun control laws that it becomes impossible to get CCWs and various other permits and firearms that normally are theoreticaly legal.

I personally think that in the future we're going to see a new law that bans individual possession of firearms and only permits collective possession. Then all they will do is regulate the collective possession to the moon just like they do with CCWs and that will be the end of gun ownership in California.

Keep in mind that based on current legal rulings and other statutes it would be 100% legal within the PRK to have a complete ban on individual ownership of firearms.