PDA

View Full Version : States with Keep and Bear Arms in their constitution


sfpcservice
12-21-2009, 2:59 PM
Are there any states that have a right to keep and bear arms in their constitution and make it virtually impossible for citizens to carry weapons similar to the way California does?

bigcalidave
12-21-2009, 3:04 PM
California does NOT have RKBA in the state constitution. Many states do. Someone with a better answer in 3...2...1.......

bigcalidave
12-21-2009, 3:04 PM
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

kf6tac
12-21-2009, 3:05 PM
Massachusetts Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Article XVII: "The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence."

Illinois Constitution, Article I, Section 22: "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Of course, the Illinois provision basically neuters itself by making the right subject to the police power, which is generally a very broad, plenary power of the state.

bwiese
12-21-2009, 3:07 PM
Hawaii has an RKBA in their state constitution. It has heavy CA-like gun controls.

Certain lawyers are entertaing moving there and having a bit of fun-in-the-sun ;)

And Oregonians brag about their RKBA in their state constitution, but I believe it was Don Kates who went thru cases and history and said that at best Oregon's RBKA backs the right to have musketry.

kf6tac
12-21-2009, 3:16 PM
Hawaii has an RKBA in their state constitution. It has heavy CA-like gun controls.

Certain lawyers are entertaing moving there and having a bit of fun-in-the-sun ;)

I'm beyond glad that McDonald will settle the incorporation issue, but it would have been interesting from a sheer intellectual standpoint to see how Hawaii's courts would have handled their RKBA provision post-Heller in the absence of incorporation, since Hawaii's RKBA provision is word for word identical to the 2nd Amendment.

GrizzlyGuy
12-21-2009, 4:32 PM
New Hampshire has a great Bill of Rights (http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html) in the area of arms. RKBA, right of revolution, separate rights related to militias and standing armies (standing armies discouraged), limitations on martial law, conscientious objectors not required to bear arms, etc.

I can't resist quoting this one:

[Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

You'll never see that one in CA.

press1280
12-21-2009, 5:54 PM
Are there any states that have a right to keep and bear arms in their constitution and make it virtually impossible for citizens to carry weapons similar to the way California does?

Hawaii, Illinois almost impossible. Massachusetts a little less difficult but not shall issue.

Minnesota is the only shall issue state w/o a RKBA in its constitution.

KylaGWolf
12-21-2009, 8:25 PM
Hawaii, Illinois almost impossible. Massachusetts a little less difficult but not shall issue.

Minnesota is the only shall issue state w/o a RKBA in its constitution.

California does NOT have RKBA in its constitution either.

sfpcservice
12-21-2009, 9:18 PM
Thanks for all the responses. I'm aware that California has no built in 2a, I was wondering if such a provision in a states constitution would prohibit the nonsense. Apparently it does not.

GearHead
12-21-2009, 11:03 PM
California does NOT have RKBA in its constitution either.

California is also not a shall-issue state.