By what power does any state government have the right to overrule or add to the constitution?

Question

In the constitution of the United States of America. All us Citizens are given the right to keep and bear arms. For the defence of both the nation and there one person and property. By what authority does a state of the United States have any legal power to require any addition restraints on this Constituation right such as requiring that a person be trained in the use of fire arms or that a fire arm be registered or that the firearm by in plain sight. Note by what power is the state government amending the constituation.

Note we are in a militia, as we all are citizens in arms for the protection of the Nation. "Shall not be infringed" is the key phrase it proclues anystate government from restricting the bearing of arms. This power is reserved for the people. Thus there is no basis for State governement infringing on the reserved rights of the poeple protected under the constituation. Thus not even for the proposed additional protection of the nation shall a state government have legal right to amend the US constituation nor shall it be legal to expound on the US constituation be requiring a age limit, training or registering of a fire arm as the scope of the Constituation is clear that For the common good of protection of the Nation we have this right. The right also is extented to one life and property by other parts of the constituation. To hold any other thought in reguard to the meaning of the constituation is treason to the articals of the Constituation.

Answer 1

The individual right to keep and bear arms is an inherent right which exists outside of and prior to the Constitution.

The existence of the Second Amendment is as a restriction on the federal government to not infringe on this right. None of the articles of the Bill of Rights is a restriction on States, only the federal government. In this context, unless restricted in State Constitutions, States can restrict gun ownership and use.

With the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) the States were brought into the Constitution as if they are a part of the federal government and the argument is then made that the Bill of Rights apply to the States. This is interesting since the Fourteenth Amendment never met the Constitutional requirements of a ratified amendment. However, in 1869 in the case of Texas v White the Supreme Court opined that the federal government could apply the Fourteenth Amendment due to “right of conquest.” Clearly this was intended for acts of the federal government to the former States of the Confederacy with such things as unseating elected members of State legislature and replacing it with a selected legislature. Therefore the Second Amendment intent is applicable to the States since 1869.

Let me also make the point that the Constitution (or the general government created by it) has not rights to grant to anyone.

Answer 2

The answer to this question will be as varied as the opinions of those answering it. States can give greater protections to it's citizens than the US Constitution gives, so in that way States can do something that the US Constitution doesn't.

Taking the text of the Second Amendment, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.", it can be argued that the US Constitution does not give every person the right to bear arms, but it gives every person acting as a soldier the right to bear arms.

You really need to read the history and the law that has been decided over the last 200 years on the issue. There is no short answer.No where is the US Constitution's Second Amendment does it say, as you stated in your question, "All us Citizens are given the right to keep and bear arms. For the defence[sic] of both the nation and there one person and property."

Answer 3

Intimidating a unfastened press IS unconstitutional without the suitable courtroom being in touch to assert so. utilising the tax collector as intimidation is likewise unconstitutional. you do no longer could desire to be a constitutional criminal expert to properly known that. a narrative has leaked that Obama replaced into going to announce the foiled terror attack that replaced into the reason at the back of the examine of the so-referred to as leak. John Brennan, the anti terror consultant to the president is the only that leaked the section approximately Al Qaeda in Yemen being infiltrated. there replaced into no justification for what the AG branch did to AP. None in any respect different than intimidation and to get a shield on their sources. Very unconstitutional..

Answer 4

The right to bear arms is still given to us. just with certain restictions. if u allowed 13 year odls to carry guns to school thatd be crazy. we need some restrictions. just as if we are free in the US we cant be so free that we get out of Control. civil unrest is kept down by limitations.

Also the Constitutions tates they haev any powers which are nto listed bt are necessary. which ar epowers nto specifically disclaimed in the constituion

Answer 5

It dosnt but that is the goverment for you under Bush he thinks he is king