PDA

View Full Version : States that guarantee RKBA


Mooseeyes
04-16-2011, 6:56 AM
44 States have provisions in their State Constitutions that guarantee the right to keep and bare arms. The link below goes to the NRA list of those 44 States, showing the language that these States have in their State Constitutions:

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=63&issue=010

The six missing States are California; Iowa; Maryland; Minnesota; New Jersey; and, New York. These six States do not have a RKBA provision in their State Constitutions.

Window_Seat
04-16-2011, 7:55 AM
It was an issue prior to McDonald, but no longer is because the Second is incorporated against the states & localities due to McDonald.

Erik.

socal2310
04-16-2011, 8:32 AM
It's a good thing Illinois and Massachusetts have a right to keep and bear arms in their constitutions or gun owner's rights would have been severely curtailed prior to McDonald - oh, wait....

Ryan

yellowfin
04-16-2011, 8:35 AM
Massachusetts has a "subject to police powers" clause that effectively negates the RKBA part. I think one or two other states have the same problem, like CT and IL.

ALSystems
04-16-2011, 8:37 AM
Hawaii has a RTBA provision in their state constitution but has ignored it anyway.

ALSystems
04-16-2011, 8:43 AM
Massachusetts has a "subject to police powers" clause that effectively negates the RKBA part. I think one or two other states have the same problem, like CT and IL.
Actually,
Illinois RTBA clause is "subject to police powers"
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Art. I, 22) (1970)

Massachusetts RTBA clause is "subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it"
The people have a right to keep and 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. (Part I, Art. XVII) (1780)

PatriotnMore
04-16-2011, 8:47 AM
The hypocrisy for some states is, the right to bear is infringed. The less people by choice use a right, the more it becomes a target to be infringed and abused.

ChuangTzu
04-16-2011, 1:52 PM
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As opposed to what other power? :rolleyes:

Was that really meant to limit state power in any way at all?

N6ATF
04-16-2011, 3:21 PM
In other words, subject to the power of prayer... "pray all you want, all your rights are belong to us."

Ford8N
04-16-2011, 3:25 PM
California isn't part of the US, so it doesn't matter.

N6ATF
04-16-2011, 3:41 PM
Yep, after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed with fingers crossed behind backs, and CA attained statehood ~2 years later, CA effectively seceded from the union and has had Mexican double agents placed in the legislature writing bills that benefit Mexico and harm the U.S. ever since.

Dreaded Claymore
04-17-2011, 2:34 AM
*reads state constitution RKBA provisions* Man, they really hated concealed weapons back in the day. Are there any states where concealed handguns are restricted or banned but openly carried handguns are permitted?

In other words, subject to the power of prayer... "pray all you want, all your rights are belong to us."

Take off every "Calgunner"
You know what you doing
Move "Calguns"
For great justice!

PatriotnMore
04-17-2011, 7:30 AM
*reads state constitution RKBA provisions* Man, they really hated concealed weapons back in the day. Are there any states where concealed handguns are restricted or banned but openly carried handguns are permitted?



Take off every "Calgunner"
You know what you doing
Move "Calguns"
For great justice!

Because open carry was so accepted and normal, the view that anyone would conceal their being armed was for river gamblers and scoundrels, therefore it was not considered good form to conceal.

yellowfin
04-17-2011, 10:08 AM
Actually that's not all of it. The biggest reason to ban concealing firearms was to disarm blacks in the 1800's, as they could be arrested for "disturbing the peace" or "causing terror to the public" if open carrying whereas if they carried concealed they couldn't be picked on by racist LE.

Dirtbozz
04-17-2011, 10:16 AM
California isn't part of the US, so it doesn't matter.

It used to be, and after the impending financial meltdown, may just be again. :43: