Firing blanks on an implied '2nd Amendment'
A reader takes exception to my comment in an earlier post that California's constitution lacks the equivalent of a 2nd Amendment "right to keep and bear arms."
But even 2nd Amendment enthusiasts admit (and lament) that California is lacking a guarantee for either a collective or an individual right to keep and bear arms. Commenter Tom points to Article I Section 1 of the state constitution declaring: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty..." Tom concludes, "I seem to have the inalienable right to defend my life."
But Pennsylvania's constitution, which does have a robust (or wacky, depending on your point of view) right to keep and bear arms also includes boilerplate similar to California's: "All men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent and indefeasible rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation, and of pursuing their own happiness." So, if Tom is right, Section 21 of Pennsylvania's Declaration of Rights — "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned" — is, as Chief Justice Marshall would say, mere surplusage.
California is a socialist state, no wonder they have no right to keep and bear arms in their Constitution.
Posted by: Kevin | March 24, 2008 at 06:27 PM
You ignore the most important state constitution of all, that of Virginia. Its Bill of Rights was written by George Mason in 1776, and many of its phrases were later incorported into the United States Constitution and the United States Bill of Rights. Artilce 13 defines a "Well-regulated militia" as "composed of the body of citizens trianed to arms". "therefore, the right of the people tokeep and bear arms shall not be infringed." This seems to imly more of a collective, community right than an unlimited individual right.
Posted by: David Hudson | March 25, 2008 at 09:32 AM
"that California is lacking a guarantee for either a collective or an individual right to keep and bear arms."
What exactly is a "collective right"? How can an individual not have a right, but a group of individuals have that right?
What is the minumum number for a "collective" right?
Posted by: Terry | March 25, 2008 at 11:38 AM
How quickly we forget the 14th amendment:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
State laws that impose restrictions on the right to bear arms clearly abridge privileges guaranteed citizens under the 2nd amendment, and are therefore unconstitutional. I don't see why people seem to think they can ignore the 2nd amendment just because they don't agree with it. Nevermind that, statistically speaking, all gun control laws have accomplished is the election of public officials who play on people's fears. I mean, that's worked so well for the war on terror, why not apply the same strategy to gang crime *sic*?
Posted by: Dave Parks | March 27, 2008 at 09:27 AM