To have the right to bear arms is within the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights. Yet you hear of Cities and States that continually take away gun rights. How is this possible?
2006-07-04 08:20:35 · 9 answers · asked by James H 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
3D explain please...
2006-07-04 08:25:39 · update #1
They can't. They take away the ability to carry weapons in to public areas, but they can not take away your right to own one and keep it at your home for the defense of your family.
2006-07-04 08:23:22 · answer #1 · answered by Blunt Honesty 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Everyone is guarenteed protection under the constitution.
No state denies anyone a gun for protection, BUT it also looks after its other residents. So they make it hard to get one; you would have to have a license, which would show you know how to shoot, and you have no criminal record (i mean how safe would you feel knowing that a criminal has a gun and is your next door neighbor?).
Besides, the constitution is airy and is open to different interpertations.
And think about it, if everyone walked around with a gun, there would be a death for every man who crosses a women when she's on her week. and yes, this is coming from a girl. so it's a good thing that it's hard to get it! :)
As for 3D's comment, which you want explained. it's incorrect.
State laws do not go over the constitution
The constitution is the basic rule book; if there is something the constitution does not discuss, then it's up to the states to make a law for it, BUT if the state doesn't, then its up to the people.
The constitution can be amended, like you can add new laws to negate old laws (remember the prohibition era) but that's a lengthy process. So it's open to interpertation by the supreme court, who could declare something as constitutional or unconstitutional. but that's not declared by the state courts, only by the supreme court.
2006-07-04 15:27:58 · answer #2 · answered by thepenpal 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You misinterpret the second amendment. Our nation is built on the concept of law, which in Common Law (which is our law) Stare Decisis (which basically means it precedent based law) helps to define the law.
The Supreme Court has ruled on a number of occasions that states can limit guns. It is not contrary to the constitution to have restrictive gun laws so long as they fit other constitutional requirements. Very similar to how a State can require you to get a permit to parade or assemble although it is a right protected by the first amendment.
You have to look at the Supreme Court ruling to understand the law, and if you want to try to be a strict reader of the constitution you cannot ignore the frist clause of the amendment.."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
So the short answer is the Supreme Court has answered this question and states have the right to regulate fire arms.
2006-07-04 19:25:04 · answer #3 · answered by strangedaze23 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because there is wiggle room there. The Second Amendment says that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the common defense, so people can bear arms. But militias are defined as being run by the states and authorized by Congress, so "militia" is usually interpreted to mean the National Guard.
Also, the Second Amendment doesn't say that states can't regulate gun ownership, so licensing and training requirements can be constitutional.
2006-07-04 15:25:35 · answer #4 · answered by J C 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The right to bear arms has not been interpreted by the supreme court to mean the right to own and carry whatever weapon you want anywhere you want.
For instance, you might tell your guests at your home that you don't permit shotguns at your party. If your guest challenged this in court, you would win.
States and other government entities can pass laws restriction gun usage, ownership, dealing, etc.
If you or anyone else thinks a gun law violates the U.S. constitution, you can challenge that law in court. The courts, whose job it is to interpret the constitution, will then rule specifically whether that particular gun law is in fact unconstitutional. If it is ruled unconstitutional, it ceases to be law.
2006-07-04 15:26:29 · answer #5 · answered by enginerd 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There was just a decision handed downby the Supreme Court last week I believe stating that a certain city's law against handgun ownership was invalid because it was against the Second Amendment! I believe it was San Francisco! It is a great victory for our freedoms!
2006-07-04 15:28:17 · answer #6 · answered by Jimmy Pete 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It doesn't supersede the States Rights
2006-07-04 15:24:30 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well. You've got president who trumps the constitution why not everyone else?
2006-07-04 15:23:51 · answer #8 · answered by gshewman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is defnitely unconstitional. Withdraw from union?
2006-07-04 15:37:17 · answer #9 · answered by Dummy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋