"'Allows'. -- There you go again, assuming that a State has a power under the US Constitution, - to infringe on our Right to bear arms. - They do not."
Actually, because the 2nd has not been incorporated into the 14th by the Supreme Court, our legal system would not agree with you - the states do have the power to regulate guns, so long as such regulation is in line with their own constitutions.
"Virtual prohibitions on concealed carry are reasonable? -- Your claim that you '- know the Constitution backwards and forwards - ', is wearing thin."
I don't see how it is wearing thin, except in your opinion, to which you are fully entitled. Aside from the incorporation problem that I've already mentioned, we make reasonable exceptions to things that are "absolute" elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. Congress *can* make a law making libel and slander illegal despite the 1st Amendment. If a state, or Congress, wants to ban concealed carry, that may well be within its power (the issue, so far as I know, has not been adjudicated). You can bear an arm and at the same time keep it fully visible.
"Article VI says that the 2nd Amendment, is part of the ' - Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. - ' Unreasonable restrictions on concealed carry are a clear infringement."
This was not the intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights, that the BOR restrict the states, too. I think it should, generally, but until incorportation began, long after the 14th Amendment was passed, the courts were squarely on the side that the BOR did not apply to the states.
Finally, what is reasonable to one can be unreasonable to another, and vice versa. Everyone has their opinion. It is up to our legislatures to make laws *they* consider reasonable. If the people don't like those laws, they don't have to return the legislators to office, and if the laws definitely infringe, the courts have the power to over turn them. That's the way it is.
Actually, because the 2nd has not been incorporated into the 14th by the Supreme Court, our legal system would not agree with you -
Our legal system has 'made up' the concept of "incorporation". There is no Constitutional basis for the idea, as Article VI is very clear on that issue.. The States are bound, -- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
the states do have the power to regulate guns, so long as such regulation is in line with their own constitutions.
" -- the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" -------- "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Connect the dots Steve.. This is a pretty basic idea. Words mean what they say.
"Virtual prohibitions on concealed carry are reasonable? -- Your claim that you '- know the Constitution backwards and forwards - ', is wearing thin."
I don't see how it is wearing thin, except in your opinion, to which you are fully entitled. Aside from the incorporation problem that I've already mentioned,
[Its only a 'problem' to the lawyers that made it up]
we make reasonable exceptions to things that are "absolute" elsewhere in the Bill of Rights.
Exactly the problem, since your "WE" imagine yourselves to be reasonable on regulating guns, etc. -- when in fact you've created a nightmare of unconstitutional prohibitions.
Congress *can* make a law making libel and slander illegal despite the 1st Amendment. If a state, or Congress, wants to ban concealed carry, that may well be within its power (the issue, so far as I know, has not been adjudicated). You can bear an arm and at the same time keep it fully visible.
Yep, that you '- know the Constitution backwards and forwards - "may well be". -- But to my mind, the clear words of the 2nd are not up for "adjudication". They must be repealed if they are to be infringed. - Catch 22, you also agree on that point. You want the 2nd to be changed.
____________________________________
Article VI says that the 2nd Amendment, is part of the ' - Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. - '
Unreasonable restrictions on concealed carry are a clear infringement.
This was not the intent of the authors of the Bill of Rights, that the BOR restrict the states, too.
The authors of Article VI belie your opinion. Their clear words are part of the "Law of the Land".
I think it should, generally, but until incorportation began, long after the 14th Amendment was passed, the courts were squarely on the side that the BOR did not apply to the states.
Not at all. In 1803, Justice Marshall's Marbury opinion clearly said that laws repugnant to the Constitution are null & void. -- ALL laws, made at any level of government in the USA, -- must conform to Constitutional principles.
Finally, what is reasonable to one can be unreasonable to another, and vice versa. Everyone has their opinion. It is up to our legislatures to make laws *they* consider reasonable. If the people don't like those laws, they don't have to return the legislators to office, and if the laws definitely infringe, the courts have the power to over turn them. That's the way it is.
"That's the way it is" to the 'living constitution' faction. Pretty odd that you don't realize that point.