the Supremacy Clause of the constitution and Marbury V Madison seem to make clear that if a law is in open violation to the constitution, that law is Null and Void.
So unlike any other right in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment has the words "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". the implication by omission is that other rights may be infringed (limited, regulated, restricted) but the right to bear arms may not be.
Now the federal and state governments have passed several laws that severely limit the peoples right to bear arms. For example: the NY SAFE Act, the National Firearms Act, Assault Weapons Ban, and the several states that MAY (or may not) issue handgun permits. So if a state can outright deny your right to bear arms and the laws may limit and restrict your right to bear arms, how is it possible that these laws are not considered in direct violation of the constitution? Even most states have a version of the second amendment or the right of the people to form militias (and US V Miller said the 2nd amendment applies to all weapons suitable for use in a militia. Meaning the people have a right to own military weapons), so there is good reason to question the constitutionality of these laws. US code title 42 section 1983 also makes it a crime to deprive someone of their constitutional rights under color of law. so would it not be a crime itself to enforce these unconstitutional laws?
So unlike any other right in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment has the words "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". the implication by omission is that other rights may be infringed (limited, regulated, restricted) but the right to bear arms may not be.
Now the federal and state governments have passed several laws that severely limit the peoples right to bear arms. For example: the NY SAFE Act, the National Firearms Act, Assault Weapons Ban, and the several states that MAY (or may not) issue handgun permits. So if a state can outright deny your right to bear arms and the laws may limit and restrict your right to bear arms, how is it possible that these laws are not considered in direct violation of the constitution? Even most states have a version of the second amendment or the right of the people to form militias (and US V Miller said the 2nd amendment applies to all weapons suitable for use in a militia. Meaning the people have a right to own military weapons), so there is good reason to question the constitutionality of these laws. US code title 42 section 1983 also makes it a crime to deprive someone of their constitutional rights under color of law. so would it not be a crime itself to enforce these unconstitutional laws?
Gun Control is Unconstitutional
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire