Omgili, forum search, forums search, search forums, discussion search,discussions search, search discussions, board search, boards search, search boards
  Advanced Search

44 States have specific state constitutionalal provisions for the right to keep and bear arms

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:29:42 -0500, "Herb Martin" <...@learnquick.com
The Court is soon to rule on Heller and the consensus, opposed and
in favor to gun control, is that it will rule in favor of Heller and clearly
declare an Individual Right to Keep and Bear arms.

The ruling is likely to be (very) narrow however and almost certainly
will not have any effective element of incorporating this ruling on the
states (could happen but unlikely.)

So, we have all been presuming that nothing will change elsewhere
until somebody in Chicaco (most likely candidate due to similar
draconian guns bans) brings a similar suit the issue is resolved,
thus taking another 2-10 years.

But wait!

44 States have specific state constitutionalal provisions for the right
to keep and bear arms. California does not but it has a statutory
provision AND a constitutional provision deferring to the US
Constitution as the supreme law of the California.

So that makes 45 states that either defer to the US Constitution or
have their own provision mirroring it.

The no-provision states are Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey,
and New York (ignoring CA).
http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Several states enacted these Constitutional provisions in very recent
modern times, thus showing the possibility of straightening out the
mess that would be created were SCOTUS to get this wrong (despite
practically unanimous belief they will not):

Illinois (1970), Delaware (1987), Nebraska(1988), North Dakota (1984),
West Virginia (1986), Wisconsin(1998)

So maybe Californian courts are REQUIRED to follow the decision by their
own Constitution and the clarify will encourage or force Illinois courts to
do
the same.

Problem states would then be Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.

Clearly the Hawaiin constitutional provision means whatever the US
one does -- they are word for word equal.

Think about it.....



On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:01:04 -0500, "HeyBub" <...@NOSPAMgmail.com
Illinois Constitution - Section 22

RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the
individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

This has worked out well in the state's requiring a "Firearm Owner's
Identification Card" and Chicago's city ordinances.

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 10:17:22 -0500, Jim Casey <...@comcast.net
Illinois rewrote its constitution in 1970, but for the most part it was
simply recycled. Its right to arms clause (Article 1, section 22) has
never, to my knowledge, been used to overturn any law or ordinance.
That includes complete bans on certain classes of weapons and a
statewide prohibition on bearing arms in any capacity except hunting.

- Jim

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:58:48 -0700 (PDT), JLG <...@hotmail.com
On Jun 17, 9:29 am, "Herb Martin" <...@learnquick.com"California does not but it has a statutory
provision AND a constitutional provision deferring to the US
Constitution as the supreme law of the California."

I don't see how this idea that the constitution is the supreme law of
the land helps anything. (A) the constitution is the supreme law of
the land regardless of whether a particular state has such an express
provision in place or not; and (B) if the 2nd amendment is eventually
held to not apply to the states (currently an open question) this
doesn't help, it merely means that the law of California is the same,
that it doesn't apply to the states. As to how much the other states
constitutional RKBA provisions help, that will depend on how each
state's courts interpret their own provision. As HeyBub notes, it
hasn't helped the residents of Chicago much, so I wouldn't get my
hopes up.

JLG

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:26:58 -0500, "Herb Martin" <...@learnquick.com
"JLG" <...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

Yes, but if SCOTUS doesn't enforce a right through incorporation
or some other method the state is free to do what it will.

On the other hand if the state has an explicit provision that means
courts there can (and should) rule based on the US Constitution
superceding their own, especially in the case of rights, even though
SCOTUS isn't requiring that.

There is a good argument that is does matter.

And, the interpretation, even if it is non-binding may matter since
most states use the same, similar, or MORE protective (of the
right) wording.

Judges will tend to use the logic of the Supreme Court if the
wording is the same.

And again, defense attorneys can argue that the words must
mean the same thing and this can put a halt to "reinterpretation"
of the words even without explicit incorporation.

My point is that this can affect such interpretations without
explicit incorporation.

Affect it in several ways at the state level.


On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:57:47 -0400, "Pea Shooter" <...@cox.net
RI state constitution made it very clear...

Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed.

"Zombywoof" <...@4ax.com...



Omgili Home Usenet About FAQ Omgili TV Shows Privacy

International Omgili: חיפוש בפורומים | 掲示板検索