[LS]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This was what was known as "states' rights" or "local control." Colonies long had regulations against carrying firearms in church, for example, and the issue that set off the "gunfight at the O.K. Corrall" was that to control the carnage in Tombstone, the Earps required all firearms be checked at the sheriff's office while in town.

The Constitutional issue is not whether people can carry weapons they choose any where, any time, but WHO makes the laws. Emerson essentially upheld this by saying that CONGRESS CANNOT, but that locals (such as Wash. D.C. CAN). Therefore, if you want "concealed carry laws" in Washington, move there and change the law.

[fporretto]

I must disagree.

When the Constitution intends to deny a power to the federal government, it says: "Congress shall make no law." When it intends to deny a power to all levels of government, it says that no such law "shall be passed," or that a particular right "shall not be infringed," omitting any mention of who might pass the law or do the infringing.

Under this literal reading of the document, the state of Massachusetts had an established church until 1830, and it was widely regarded as within its proper sphere to have one. By contrast, the Fourth Amendment prohibition against warrantless searches and seizures, phrased so as not to refer to any particular level of government, was held to apply to the states as early as 1797.

Granted that it will be a while before municipalities and states accept this approach, or before Washington moves to force it upon them.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[toddst]

. . . if you want "concealed carry laws" in Washington, move there and change the law.

First, I wouldn't live in D.C. for any reason. Beyond that, Washington is a unique city, having no state constitution within which it must operate.

D.C. residents need to decide what's in their best interest IMHO.

[William Terrell]

You're right for a state, but DC would come under Article 1, section 8, clause 17.

[FreeTally]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

Congress is not mentioned in my 2nd Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be ingringed" means no level of government can infringe upon the people's right. Not the feds, not the States, not counties and not cities. No one.

[SevenDaysInMay]

The 14th's equal protection extends Constitutional rights over the "several states" so states are required to abide by the obvious Law of the Land, i.e. 2nd Article of our Bill of Rights.

[Mulder]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Wrong. The second amendment states that "The Right of the People shall not be infringed....". It applies just as the provisions of the 4th, 5th, and other amendmends do. In otherwords, throughout the entire United States.

[VRWCmember]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

One could reasonably argue that the First Amendment does not DENY cities or states the authority to establish an official religion -- only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. However, that sort of recognition of states' rights went out of style a long time ago.

[Shooter 2.5]

The First Amendment begins with the words, "Congress shall make no law....". The Second Amendment has no such wording to it and since the Bill of Rights is the highest law of the land it is superior to what any municipality can claim. The Bill of Rights does not allow Rights. It explains inalienable rights. Rights that can not be given or taken away.

[in the Arena]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. This was what was known as "states' rights" or "local control." Colonies long had regulations against carrying firearms in church, for example, and the issue that set off the "gunfight at the O.K. Corrall" was that to control the carnage in Tombstone, the Earps required all firearms be checked at the sheriff's office while in town.

I don't buy this example, Arizona did not join the Union until 14 Feb 1912. The shootout you mention took place on 26 October 1881.

The people of the Arizona territory were not subject too nor protected by the Consitution. Local towns/sheriffs could enact any ordinances they choose.

Once the territory became a State it was bound by the US Constitution in particular the portion of the 14th amendment..."No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

[Centurion2000]

It is worth noting that the Constitution does not DENY cities the authority to regulate firearms or other weapons---only the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Supremacy clause still supercedes state and local laws.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Emerson essentially upheld this by saying that CONGRESS CANNOT, but that locals (such as Wash. D.C. CAN).

Nope--THEN the STATE constitutions rule. Almost all state constitutions have bills of rights guaranteeing RKBA--I think there are only three that do not, and, as I recall, California and New Jersey are two of them.

Washington, DC is a special case--but the proper interpretation is that the Constitutional guarantees apply DIRECTLY to residents thereof.