Suing Maryland for CCW?

[fightinbluhen51]

Basically Andyman the logic is laid out un Barron v. Baltimore 23 U.S. 243--that the Constitution is a contract if you will between all the citizens of the US and the Federal authorities and covers their respective rights and responsiblities. The State constitutions are a contract between the citizens of that state and their government, and the intent of the Framers was to not impinge on local control/laws. So while the Feds cant interfere with your gun rights a State constituion can hold differently. This problem became very apparent in the 1860's and 70's when the Southern state post-reconstruction constituions started essentially re-imposing slavery and the North got very annoyed about it....giving us the 14th amendment that creates the gateway to incorporation.

Now incorporation is a double edged sword yes, it gives us federal rights, but it also opens the door to, for instance, forcing us all to comply with what California thinks is acceptable restrictions.

This is also what I am concerned with the Thune amendment doing---if you let the Feds pre-empt state law on CCW, you start giving them the right to determine who gets a CCW....

But driving is already issued and regulated on a state level, and that is not Constitutionally guaranteed. Considering that the states still issue, and REGULATE, then what's the problem? The Federal Gov is stepping in and saying, hey, you can't discriminate this person, simply because they aren't a resident of your state, the Constitution still applies; you're laws on where they can and can't carry still apply, and you're citizens have to abide by your rules and your visitors still have to abide by your rules.

 

[teratos]

The Bill of Rights, however, establishes that all U.S. Citizens already have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. This is not open for regulation by either the Feds or the States. Any attempt to regulate this is Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. There should be no debate. At least, that's how I read it.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

The Bill of Rights, however, establishes that all U.S. Citizens already have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms. This is not open for regulation by either the Feds or the States. Any attempt to regulate this is Unconstitutional, and therefore illegal. There should be no debate. At least, that's how I read it.

This is true, but as long as the courts don't rule in that way, it's just the statists making criminals out of non-criminals.

 

[teratos]

This is true, but as long as the courts don't rule in that way, it's just the statists making criminals out of non-criminals.

We seriously need to take our country back. Judges with political agendas need to go. Constitutional law is pretty f'ing simple. You don't need to go to law school to figure this out. It starts in the schools with kids notlearning history correctly, and moves along as we age. Most people have such a hands off attitude. I am often considered a radical in political discussions. As long as people see me as such, I don't have much hope of us returning to the system of government we were intended to have. What we have now is an Oligarchy.

 

[Trapper]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the States, The powers prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the people.

OK so if you reorganize the 10A it seems to make more sense the way you mean. So now all I need is to understand where the authority comes from for the 2A to apply to the states and not just the fed. Any takers??

andy

Okay, I think I see what you are missing. You are looking at the Constitution as a Federal document. Try looking at it as a document by The People (those with the real power). The Constitution uses the power of The People to organized the country and give it the basic rules by which the Federal and State governments operate. The power comes from The People, not from the States or the Fed.

An analogy would be the "Articles of Incorporation" for a company. These articles provide the basis for the company. Corporate Policies cover the whole corporation, and in additiona there may be divisional policies that further define operations and conduct. However, the owners of the company have the power to change any of these, as they are the ones with the true power and can modify everything up to the "Articles", and even abolish the corporation and the "Articles". "We The People" are the owners of this country, and of each of the separate states and only WE have the power to change or abolish it.
Presently we are allowing some real numbskulls to make rules for our corporation, but eventually we will tire of their crap and fire them.


Darn it, one-star answered it while I was working on my analogy...