Bill of Rights the 2nd

I understand that the states should have more self power than the federal government, but…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Isn’t any law hindering my ability to posess and carry a firearm constitutionally illegal?
I’m heading to Rhode Island from Pittsburgh…i leave with my EDC, we have no planned stop in New York or Connecticut so i keep my EDC on and my door gun in place. We stop at the hotel, now i have to remove my weapon, unload both, lock them in the trunk with the magazines locked away from my weapon.
Not that I’m old at 48, but defending myself against younger more than 1 person isn’t in my favor. Carrying is an equalizer isn’t it? Any law that hinders my ability to defend myself against anyone should be illegal to make…true or false… even if and especially against a federal or state government police or military people.
Again, how is any law constitutionally leagle that prohibits me from carrying a firearm? I have never heard a logical answer based upon my 2nd amendment rights.

3 Likes

People are interpreting the constitution differently. Emotionally and rationally. That’s my best answer. It is a good question I hope to see more comments.

4 Likes

Originally the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government ("Congress shall make no law…). After the Civil War the 14th Amendment began the process of making the restrictions in the Bill apply also to state and local laws. The simple theory is that all of them applied below Federal level, but in reality several courts cases dealt with them one at a time. Anti-gunners insisted the 2nd was Federal only, until the Heller Decision for DC and McDonald for Illinois confirmed the 2nd applies to the states. However, the question is still open as to how much the states can regulate firearm access. Currently that issue revolves around shall-issue versus may-issue concealed carry permit laws; we expect this issue to be resolved this year in the New York case currently before the Supreme Court.

All of the above is in the arcane world of laws, court case law, precedent, etc.

However, you have another issue, in that under current legal practice you may be playing with fire, so to speak, by remaining armed as you pass through two of the most gun-unfriendly states, New York and Connecticut. (New Jersey and Maryland are in the same category.) If you happen to have any police interaction in either state, they might perform a database search telling the officer you have a carry license. If the officer asks, or even searches, you may find yourself under arrest.
I heartily recommend you research the details of both states at handgunlaw.us and plan just how you will travel.

NOTE: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice, only advice to do more legal research.

Craig

11 Likes

NY has been known to violate FOPA, charging legal gun owners who abide by FOPA guidelines of having gun unloaded and locked, ammo unloaded and separated etc…they lose the case, but you lose money and time defending yourself. I did see a recent article or post ( think it was here in fact), guy coming from NC through NY with pistol in console was not charged, maybe after 5 days, memory hazy in this, but basically, if you’re traveling through a state you are not permitted in, gun is supposed to be locked up, ammo seperated, both our of reach…and you’re supposed to be traveling to a destination you can legally carry in.
CT has no duty to inform. I live in CT, no longer visit RI or MA, and stay off 95 when headed out in my RV. NY is a tale of two states. Upstate is okay for the most part, anything near the city sucks.
I have CT, FL, and UT permits, so can carry in most of the country, I just can’t leave my state without running the gauntlet.
Fill tank, check lights, don’t stop 'til VA. PA stopped honoring the UT permit a few years back…so they don’t get any of my greenbacks either.
Main reason I’m looking to move soon. Sick of the government in the NE.
NJ… hollow points get you jail time.
Check out Armed Attorneys on YouTube for some advice regarding NY and FOPA, general legal advice as well.

4 Likes

It doesn’t take a lawyer to understand that the only right that expressly spells it out is the 2A.
It’s the only one that states and I quote, with no emotion
“shall not be infringed”.
I looked it up , “infringe”, and everywhere I looked it said the same thing, don’t f#$€ with it!

To use in a sentence, don’t infringe on my morning coffee!
Meaning if you, in any way, violate, encroach, impinge, breach or otherwise undermine my daily ritual, I can break all your fingers then your wrist and on and on until I reach your neck! “ shall not” means DON’T!
Sorta like “thou shall not kill”. Does that mean, in their eyes, I can kill a little bit? I would only be infringing a little bit on your neck.

I reall don’t understand why it takes a Rhodes Scholar to figure out what “shall not infringe” means!
Does it really take 9 justices to screw in a lightbulb? It’s the simplest amendment in the book!

6 Likes

Legal question: if a state or local government continues to file charges known to be invalid, can defendants (individually or collectively) sue for damages?

I don’t know how the various states define prosecutorial harassment or malicious prosecution, or if public officials (district attorneys, county prosecutors, etc.) are immune from such suits.

2 Likes

In all seriousness, if they can throw innocent civilians, for being in a certain zip code on a particular day, into solitary confinement without being charged. They obviously can break any law they see fit. Constitutional or not! For all intents and purposes the constitution doesn’t exist anymore!
Look at Canada and Australia, for examples of people just like us, no 2A but still living with the pursuit of living with God given rights, which the government has squashed!
It’s happening here slowly because they can’t figure out away to get all the guns! As soon as they do we will look and sound like Shanghai!

5 Likes

Seems to me that the muddiest part of these arguments is that people want federal authority to preempt state authority, except when they want state authority to preempt federal authority — except when they want some local level of authority to deflect or conform to some higher level.

In other words, people want what they want and will attempt to construe the rulebook to their favor.
Nothing new under the sun.

3 Likes

Keeping your EDC on in NY or NJ is most definitely a felony and risks years in prison. By risk I mean, if caught, you’re SOL, because it’s purely illegal and there will be no successful defense (short some kind of specific exemption like LEOSA). Not stopping changes nothing on legality here.

Unloading and locking it (handgun) up in a safe in the trunk still risks arrest and felony charges in those states.

3 Likes

Sickening…literally sickens me.

2 Likes

South Carolina seems bad as well. Thank God for this map.

I don’t know what the bill of rights does anymore. As a constitutionalist, times seem dark

2 Likes

That’s why 25 states now have or will soon have constitutional carry. Judges have usurped our power and we need to take it back by flooding with calls the Judicial Committee to bring back Courts of Justice where the Jury reigns supreme and the Judge has almost no power. With Courts of Justice there is no need of appeals courts. Also learn about and share the term Jury Nullification which can be enacted immediately and see how many mistrials a corrupt Judge will call.

3 Likes

That is true, but that does not account for when government infringes on one’s rights. Governments should follow the moral and ethical codes of society. When they do not, that is when people want the federal/state/local government that is following the moral and ethical codes to step in and protect them - the reason for government, to protect its people, at least in our country.

As to the RKBA, most states have some form of the RKBA in their constitution, many with similar words to the 2A, including “shall not be infringed.” Those states laws that infringe on the RKBA are breaking even their own constitution, regardless of whether or not they believe in the federal 2A.

2 Likes

Well, I think it does.

That’s what I meant by my statement — people want what they want, and often construe “rights” to argue what they want to be a prevailing interpretation. If they think the federal statement or application is more infringe-y than their state or local interpretation, then local is “right”. If they think state or local control gets into their space, then they want the federal interpretation (or last year’s or last century’s interpretation).

Any side of any issue may argue their preference with that form of “logic”. In constitutional matters, 1A, 2A, 4A, 5A, 6A, 8A, 9A, 10A, 14A, 15A, 19A — hell, maybe others…and certainly the creation of laws which apply them. There are at least two sides to any question of interpreting a set of words, unless you (or “they”) are designated the sole arbiter of “truth”. Then there is no argument or society, just oppression.

Our system of law is designed to protect a diverse multitude of belief systems and customs, not “the moral and ethical code” of any sect or constituency. That concept has gotten considerable pushback from entitled and dominant factions, on and off over the course of our country’s history. Now is certainly one of those times. But saying the rules are “just so” does not actually make them what any particular contingent wants or believes.

You have misconstrued and twisted my statement. I did not state beliefs, I stated morals and ethics. You are implying that different people have different morals and should not be judged on our laws in the USA? That would destroy the USA as we know it. So, to rachet back your rhetoric, those that live in the USA are bound by our federal and state constitutions and their laws of the USA and the state they live in or travel to/through, regardless of their moral or ethical codes. I am unaware of any society that views murder as just, moral or ethical. with the exception of a particular one that believes in killing non-heteros and infidels.

Our inalienable rights have nothing to do with other people’s moral and ethical codes. As the word states, those rights are inviolable. In the USA, our rights are guaranteed and protected by the Constitution, regardless of their belief system, morals and ethics, does not change them. As you stated, even those in the minority are protected by these same rights. Using your claim about protecting minority interests, we should have our RKBA protected for that reason alone. Are we not a minority? If you believe we are not, should not our rights still be protected?

I didn’t intend to construe or misconstrue your statement. I intended to respond to it, and to clarify my meaning. Maybe I accomplished that for others, if not for you.

“Governments should follow the moral and ethical codes of society” is not a plausible thing in a free country.

Our government is not supposed to follow any particular moral or ethical code (cf. 1A), but to follow the form outlined by our Constitution and the system of laws and procedures formed under it to pursue liberty and justice for all. The amazing beauty of :us: is that 250 years ago a crew of white, male, landed elites assembled the wisdom and cooperation to concoct a system with the potential to accommodate the nearly unimaginable developments and challenges which were to follow.

Use it or lose it.

Because a free country contains not one, but many “moral and ethical codes” — derived from our diverse belief systems and customs, not just yours or mine. In most respects, those customs and values are identical, or similar, or at least sort of parallel. But in some respects they are quite different, to the point of being opposite or nearly so. How we address the intolerable, and how we arrange to live and let live with inevitable differences, is a measure of whether we will have a society of adults or of children.

1 Like

So, the constitution believes in multiple moral and ethical codes? The writers did not instill their beliefs of what a Democratic Republic should be in the Constitution? The Bill of Rights does not delineate what our inalienable rights are? Moral and ethical codes of “different” people, as I stated, that do not conform to our laws will be prosecuted. Again, my point was about our inalienable rights, not someone’s “beliefs”. Additionally, as I stated, if their “beliefs” do not conform to our inalienable rights and our laws, their “beliefs” will be judged by our laws. Theft, murder, etc., are not just, moral nor ethical in the USA.

Any example of cultures in our country with opposing moral values? How do we live with that? We have laws. If they break them, they are punished, just like the Left does to us with their “gun control” laws.

:roll_eyes:
No. The Constitution does not “believe in” anything. It’s a document.

The document lays out an orderly (if sometimes baffling) method of running a government — with some requirements, some prohibitions, and some methods by which we are to have a functioning representative democracy.

If the freely elected representatives of the people agree next term that theft, murder, and mayhem shall be legal on Thursdays and Saturdays before 11am, the Constitution doesn’t care — that’s for the Legislature to decide. If the Executive doesn’t or can’t veto the resolution, it becomes law of the land. Presumably, at some point SCOTUS will be asked to examine whether this Murder and Mayhem Act is written and applied in a manner consistent with the Constitution. If the Justices find no problem, the Constitution doesn’t mind — it only sets the bounds within which the people’s government must perform its wise or silly business.

Maybe it’s worth a reminder that the US Constitution makes little or no attempt at controlling the behavior of individual people — it is almost entirely about controlling the functions of government. What is or is not a specific crime or requirement applicable to individuals is not the business of the Constitution, but the function of the three branches it invented. Also, your unalienable rights are actually a much broader thing than only the Bill of Rights. They come up when in the course of a different document — the one which justified forming a united nation from a sack of colonies.

Sure, that’s easy. Some US cultures hold that the appearance of the word “militia” in 2A means there is no right of individuals to be infringed — others, of course, hold a different value. Some US cultures hold that values important in their religion should bind upon those of other faith systems — those others are pretty much opposed. Some US cultures believe all humanity is one — others are quite insular about colors, credentials, and whatnot. And on and on.

How do we live with that? We argue. We vote. We move along. Maybe repeat as needed. With respect, and dedicated to forming a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, we abide.

3 Likes

To me, there can be no domestic tranquility without defending our God given rights. We are no longer represented. We call these people our leaders, but they are not meant to lead, they are meant to do our will, to represent their people. It’s a little off topic but i need the ability to defend myself, my family and my neighbors. I don’t run around waving a weapon, i am harmless until it’s time not to be, and that time not to be is when i or we are in danger. Who are others to tell me that i can’t when the supreme law of the land says i can. If you take away our ability to defend ourselves then you allow other to enforce their will upon you. No one has the right to enforce their will on anyone.
I understand the need in some places to not carry arms…planes, terrible idea, court rooms, bad idea, but when politicians employ people to defend them with weapons, what is that message, what does that say? Don’t do as I do, do as i say. I heard that enough from my father growing up!
I deserve the ability to defend myself and others. I still have not heard a good argument other than its a state’s right. I guess if i don’t like it, then i should not go to that state.

3 Likes