GRusling
New member
It's called Federalism
In the beginning, 13 Independent States (Nations) joined in a federated effort to secure their independence and pledged themselves to mutual defense. The new federal government was authorized to do certain things ONLY, and each of those things was named in the new constitution. Each of the states already had a Constitution of its own, authorizing that State government to do some things while denying it authority to do others. Those State constitutions were not identical. Some even went as far as to establish a "State Religion".
The U.S. Constitution was never intended to make every State the same, and the "Bill of Rights" was written to PRECLUDE the federal government from ever attempting to make LAW in certain areas. The federal constitution forbids the federal government from attempting to control the arms of The People. Some State Constitutions actually AUTHORIZE the State Government to make such laws. Texas is one such State. It cannot deny citizens the right to KEEP their own arms, but it can "regulate" the public carrying of those arms. I'm sure many other States have similar laws. California, for instance, has no equivalent of the federal 2nd Amendment at all, and the State Government has full authority to regulate, not just the carrying of arms but the actual OWNERSHIP of firearms.
All attempts to make the U.S. Constitution apply to the internal functions of the STATES are attempts to create, not a FEDERAL government but a NATIONAL government, and those two are not the same. If successful, each and every State constitution would become null and void, while the States would become nothing more than subsidiaries of the new NATIONAL government, subject to the wishes and directions of the elites in Washington DC. That would effectively negate the limitations placed on the federal government by our constitution and change our country (not a Nation) in ways most here would find unacceptable.
This is what our current administration in Washington wants ... to penetrate the separation of powers at the federal level, which would also eliminate the authority of the different levels of government. The FIRST thing everyone needs to understand is that NO RIGHTS AT ALL are granted by the federal government through the constitution, and all that constitution provides with regard to Rights is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is specifically forbidden to violate our existing rights, which the Declaration of Independence CLEARLY declares are NATURAL rights, obtained from our creator. There are no FEDERAL RIGHTS for the federal government to to declare, so it cannot demand that every State have the same laws and regulations as all others, because the STATE Constitution was in existence before that State became a member of the United States of America. The only thing the federal government can demand WITHIN any State is that it's government follow the "Republican Form" (a representative government) and that it make no laws which contravene federal law, which is very limited in scope and nature by the constitution. Every time we allow a federal law to function which has no constitutional authority, we limit OURSELVES and our own freedom, and the Bill of Rights is a list of things the federal government is NOT ALLOWED TO LEGISLATE on, while the 10th Amendment ties a knot by declaring that all "authority" (which is what it needs to make any law at all) not specifically surrendered to the federal government by the constitution is RETAINED by the States and/or The People. That's why the laws of one State can be different from another. Your "RIGHTS" remain the same, but there may be a difference in the way you can exercise those rights. If you don't like the "laws" of the State you're living in, you can vote with your feet and move to another. The same can't be said for our country since there's really nowhere else to go...
"7th Circuit Court of Appeals holds that the Second Amendment applies outside the home"
"In an opinion issued today in the Illinois case of Moore v. Madigan, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Second Amendment “right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense … implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.”
*******************************************************
...too bad the courts of Hawaii believe the 2nd Amendment means only HALF of what it says: The right to own/keepfirearms [and only if REGISTERED, that is] AT HOME. That's all...no carry.
It didn't agree with the Maryland court (U.S. District Court Judge Benson E. Legg, July 2012?) case some time back in which Legg ruled that a "good and substantial reason" did NOT need to be given in order to obtain a CC permit, just the fact that the right existed was reason enough for obtaining a CC permit (something like that, IIRC) so demanding a "good and substantial reason" was ruled UNconstitutional...which makes way for the change from may-issue to shall-issue.
And now in IL the right to choose to be armed past one's front door (to "bear" arms) is being recognized -- at least as "being implied" in the 2nd Amendment -- not just the right to have guns at home (the to "keep" part), but also to take them beyond the home (the to "bear" part)...like MOST OTHER AMERICANS can do in MOST states (if they CHOOSE to do so and are otherwise eligible).
How can American citizens in one state -- AZ, NM and CO for 3 examples -- have more rights than an American citizen in ANOTHER state -- HI and the other very few "no carry allowed" states? How does THAT make any sense?
What does it mean to be an American citizen if basic rights -- especially the Bill of Rights -- are arbitrarily applied, discriminatory (not apply to everyone) and not held in common by ALL Americans, regardless of their state of residence?
That disparity should be illegal AND unconstitutional as well -- "equal protection under the law" and all that...how states have and continue to get away with not allowing ONE form of carry (OC or CC) is outrageous.
In the beginning, 13 Independent States (Nations) joined in a federated effort to secure their independence and pledged themselves to mutual defense. The new federal government was authorized to do certain things ONLY, and each of those things was named in the new constitution. Each of the states already had a Constitution of its own, authorizing that State government to do some things while denying it authority to do others. Those State constitutions were not identical. Some even went as far as to establish a "State Religion".
The U.S. Constitution was never intended to make every State the same, and the "Bill of Rights" was written to PRECLUDE the federal government from ever attempting to make LAW in certain areas. The federal constitution forbids the federal government from attempting to control the arms of The People. Some State Constitutions actually AUTHORIZE the State Government to make such laws. Texas is one such State. It cannot deny citizens the right to KEEP their own arms, but it can "regulate" the public carrying of those arms. I'm sure many other States have similar laws. California, for instance, has no equivalent of the federal 2nd Amendment at all, and the State Government has full authority to regulate, not just the carrying of arms but the actual OWNERSHIP of firearms.
All attempts to make the U.S. Constitution apply to the internal functions of the STATES are attempts to create, not a FEDERAL government but a NATIONAL government, and those two are not the same. If successful, each and every State constitution would become null and void, while the States would become nothing more than subsidiaries of the new NATIONAL government, subject to the wishes and directions of the elites in Washington DC. That would effectively negate the limitations placed on the federal government by our constitution and change our country (not a Nation) in ways most here would find unacceptable.
This is what our current administration in Washington wants ... to penetrate the separation of powers at the federal level, which would also eliminate the authority of the different levels of government. The FIRST thing everyone needs to understand is that NO RIGHTS AT ALL are granted by the federal government through the constitution, and all that constitution provides with regard to Rights is that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is specifically forbidden to violate our existing rights, which the Declaration of Independence CLEARLY declares are NATURAL rights, obtained from our creator. There are no FEDERAL RIGHTS for the federal government to to declare, so it cannot demand that every State have the same laws and regulations as all others, because the STATE Constitution was in existence before that State became a member of the United States of America. The only thing the federal government can demand WITHIN any State is that it's government follow the "Republican Form" (a representative government) and that it make no laws which contravene federal law, which is very limited in scope and nature by the constitution. Every time we allow a federal law to function which has no constitutional authority, we limit OURSELVES and our own freedom, and the Bill of Rights is a list of things the federal government is NOT ALLOWED TO LEGISLATE on, while the 10th Amendment ties a knot by declaring that all "authority" (which is what it needs to make any law at all) not specifically surrendered to the federal government by the constitution is RETAINED by the States and/or The People. That's why the laws of one State can be different from another. Your "RIGHTS" remain the same, but there may be a difference in the way you can exercise those rights. If you don't like the "laws" of the State you're living in, you can vote with your feet and move to another. The same can't be said for our country since there's really nowhere else to go...
Last edited: