Our (MD) Constitution Protects Us

[Crab Bait]

One of the speakers at the rally today made references to the MD Constitution, so I decided to take a look. The following items come from the Declaration of Rights portion of the Constitution of Maryland. I believe that a strict interpretation of these rights would keep our 2A rights safe. I know it would be difficult (impossible?) to win in court, BUT I do feel that the "law" is on our side... What do you think? (emphasis mine)

CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.
Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the
Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof,
and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, are, and shall be the
Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State,
and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound
thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State
to the contrary notwithstanding.

Art. 17. That retrospective Laws, punishing acts committed
before the existence of such Laws, and by them
only declared criminal are oppressive, unjust and incompatible
with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto Law ought
to be made; nor any retrospective oath or restriction be
imposed, or required.

Art. 28. That a well regulated Militia is the proper and
natural defence of a free Government.
Art. 29. That Standing Armies are dangerous to liberty,
and ought not to be raised, or kept up, without the
consent of the Legislature.
Art. 30. That in all cases, and at all times, the military
ought to be under strict subordination to, and control of,
the civil power.

Art. 44. That the provisions of the Constitution of the
United States, and of this State, apply, as well in time of
war, as in time of peace; and any departure therefrom, or
violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other
plea, is subversive of good Government, and tends to
anarchy and despotism.

Art. 45. This enumeration of Rights shall not be
construed to impair or deny others retained by the People.

In my own words...
Art.2 - 2A applies to MD

Art.17 - Can't make our legally purchased guns illegal

Art.28/29/30 - This is like a long version of the 2nd Amendment without a specific reference to arms... but how else would we the people keep the military under our control?

Art.44 - I love this "under the plea of necessity" - it's like they knew the current legislators/governor personally

Art.45 - Even though "arms" aren't mentioned in the MD constitution doesn't mean they can violate the 2nd amendment

So, what do you think? Is the law on our side?

 

[AssMan]

I love 44! Thanks for sharing.

 

[teratos]

They can make possession of the firearms in question illegal. They cannot arrest you for having possessed them while they were legal, but they can arrest/charge you for possessing them AFTER they are made illegal.

That does not mean it is Constitutional. It will need to be challenged.

 

[jessebogan]

Sure the "law" is on our side... Depends on what "is" means... You would think "Shall Not Be Infringed" is pretty clear already. The problem is, starting on the feral... uh federal level, the entire government is staffed with loy-yas who spent 3 years in school learning how to take a simple document, that any 8 year old could read and understand, and twisting it to mean whatever they want, or nothing at all. Hell, even the nazgul on the SCOTUS have the nerve to state that rights are not absolute. Which means that OUR RIGHTS are only what they choose to grant us.... IE priveleges..... No wonder we are in the trouble we are in.

Jesse in Rockville
2nd generation NRA life member
GOA member

 

[Crab Bait]

They can make possession of the firearms in question illegal. They cannot arrest you for having possessed them while they were legal, but they can arrest/charge you for possessing them AFTER they are made illegal.

That does not mean it is Constitutional. It will need to be challenged.

Good point on ex post facto. It just seems like it should be impossible for them to take something that you acquired legally. I'm sure they will do what they think they can get away with.

Thanks to you and all who take the time to read my post!

 

[Rickman]

Seems MD Founders in preparing the state constitution were just as prepared as the US Founders. They knew what was or could be coming.

 

[Angus]

We still need to keep watch.

I am willing to bet that the Japanese americans in 1942 thought the constitution protected them. But that did not stop them being sent to internment camps. The supreme court even ruled that their internment was not in violation of the constitution? This action was never metioned in my U.S. history classes in Public School.

 

[ih23]

Art. 28. That a well regulated Militia is the proper and
natural defence of a free Government.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

The Supreme Court decision reads, "The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion... The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time... 'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.' 'The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.' 'A year later (1632) it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony (Massachusetts).' "

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/bills/blusvmiller.htm

 

[Crab Bait]

Angus, I would imagine that your are correct. BTW, I have included "Korematsu v. US" as one of many Supreme Court cases when teaching government in public school.

ih23, good reference. I've often said, whether for defense of our country as part of the militia, or in defense of our freedom against tyranny, either way we need arms comparable to the enemy.

 

[Glaug-Eldare]

If you think that protects us, read up on Torcaso v. Watkins. In that case, the Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that it does not violate the 1st Amendment to prohibit atheists from holding public office, because there's no requirement for any particular citizen to hold office. The CoA is completely deranged when it comes to Constitutional issues.

"In the absence of any direct authority on the point, we find it difficult to believe that the Supreme Court will hold that a declaration of belief in the existence of God, required by Article 37 of our Declaration of Rights as a qualification for State office, is discriminatory and invalid."

SCOTUS overturned their decision, nine to zero.

 

[Crab Bait]

If you think that protects us, read up on Torcaso v. Watkins. In that case, the Maryland Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that it does not violate the 1st Amendment to prohibit atheists from holding public office, because there's no requirement for any particular citizen to hold office.

"In the absence of any direct authority on the point, we find it difficult to believe that the Supreme Court will hold that a declaration of belief in the existence of God, required by Article 37 of our Declaration of Rights as a qualification for State office, is discriminatory and invalid."

SCOTUS overturned their decision, nine to zero.

Art. 36. ...nor shall any person, otherwise competent,
be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account
of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the existence
of God...
So, you're saying that atheism isn't going to disqualify me from jury duty either? God-dammit...

 

[ChannelCat]

I understand that we might be protected on paper here in the People's Republik, but bear in mind that we are ruled by a bunch of fringe leftists who believe in a so-called "living breathing constitution"....


....just a flowery way of saying that they make it up on the fly as they go, and the Constitution is, essentially, meaningless...

 

[bpSchoch]

Those religious test (although I believe them) could be interpreted to be against the first amendment (freedom of religion) so a court can strike them (that's their job).

Our strongest defense is the Miller case in terms of category of firearms (anti-s like to use it to prove their point but it really doesn't address the 2nd amendment very deeply at all over than to talk about 'common weapons'

 

[bpSchoch]

When examining law, if he a word is not defined, you have to look at a law dictionary such as Blacks Law.

Arms. Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon.

This says to me that Arms are defensive in nature

 

[George]

Here is my quick take on a few of them. My comments are in bold.


Art. 6. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, 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 non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

This states that O'malley can be charged for committing a crime for violating the Constitution of Maryland and the U.S. Constitution.

Art. 9. That no power of suspending Laws or the execution of Laws, unless by, or derived from the Legislature, ought to be exercised, or allowed.

This states that Obama's Executive Orders are not laws legally in Maryland...

Art. 28. That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defence of a free Government.

This states that we are the Militia. We are the ones who are to keep the government in check. That is why we have the right to vote people in and out of office.

Any legislation that infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms violates the Constitution of Maryland Article 28 and the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Any form of government can be charged with committing a crime for it as well.

They know this with the Oath that they swore when they took office.

Art. 44. That the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, and of this State, apply, as well in time of war, as in time of peace; and any departure therefrom, or violation thereof, under the plea of necessity, or any other plea, is subversive of good Government, and tends to anarchy and despotism.

This is what we are facing right now.....

 

[fireantresq]

Isn't the federal constitution/bill of rights supposed to protect us?
...and I'm slightly confused as to why an atheist wouldn't be qualified for office.

 

[bpSchoch]

Isn't the federal constitution/bill of rights supposed to protect us?
...and I'm slightly confused as to why an atheist wouldn't be qualified for office.

Yes the Constitution for the United States of America (and amendments) are supreme over everything else. see article 6 section 2 of that constitution (supremacy clause).

The Maryland Constitution is below the national constitution due to that art 6 sec 2.

There is very little that directly applies to the people in both constitution as they apply to how the government is run. What matters to the people are the rights either declared or assumed and in Maryland that is in the declaration of rights.

The Maryland constitution has provisions that state that you have to believe in God to hold office (the ones who wrote that made a clear distinction between a belief in a god versus practicing a particular religion. Over time the courts have decided that a belief in god is a religion itself so they ruled that provision unconstitutional per the 1rst amendment.

 

[bpSchoch]

Isn't the federal constitution/bill of rights supposed to protect us?
...and I'm slightly confused as to why an atheist wouldn't be qualified for office.

Yes the Constitution for the United States of America (and amendments) are supreme over everything else. see article 6 section 2 of that constitution (supremacy clause).

The Maryland Constitution is below the national constitution due to that art 6 sec 2.

There is very little that directly applies to the people in both constitution as they apply to how the government is run. What matters to the people are the rights either declared or assumed and in Maryland that is in the declaration of rights.

The Maryland constitution has provisions that state that you have to believe in God to hold office (the ones who wrote that made a clear distinction between a belief in a god versus practicing a particular religion. Over time the courts have decided that a belief in god is a religion itself so they ruled that provision unconstitutional per the 1rst amendment.

So you have to look at constitutions from 2 perspectives, one based on the rules and structure of government (doesn't apply to the people) and two, the rights retained by the people and prohibited by the government from messing with.

 

[rbird7282]

MD is one of the few state Constitutions that does not specifically list the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[bpSchoch]

MD is one of the few state Constitutions that does not specifically list the right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn't need to, because the national constitution has the 2nd amendment and Maryland can't take it away period.