Posted on 04/19/2018 2:12:15 AM PDT by marktwain
Only six states do not have some sort of right to keep and bear arms amendment or clause in their state Constitution. They are California, Iowa, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, and New York.
California, Maryland, New Jersey and New York show the lack of a state constitutional protection with their highly restrictive firearms laws.
Two outliers on that list are Iowa and Minnesota. State constitutional protections of the right to bear arms provide protection when the federal Constitution fails to do so. The U.S. Supreme Court has been reluctant to protect Second Amendment rights for a decade. Getting to the U.S. Supreme Court is long, difficult, and far from certain. State Supreme courts are more easily accessible, showing the utility of state constitutional protections.
Iowa is in the process of adding a constitutional amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms at the state level. The proposed amendment is as follows: From iowa.gov:
Right to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms.
SEC. 1A. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The sovereign state of Iowa affirms and recognizes the fundamental right of the people to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for all legitimate purposes. Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.
When voters are presented with a choice of having a state constitutional right to keep and bear arms, amendments pass with large majorities. A mere referendum would be required in California. But Iowa, as with some other states, such as Wisconsin, have more difficult paths to amending their constitution. In Iowa, a constitutional amendment must pass both houses of the legislature. Then an election must take place. Then the measure must pass both houses of the legislature again; then a referundum is sent to the people for approval. The Iowa amendment has now passed the first hurdle. From wcfcourier.com:
At the same time, right next door, Minnesota is trying to take everything away. see Thread # 3648364 from yesterday.
Minnesota is one of the six states that has no protection for the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitution.
“....Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”
That’s a poison pill Iowa...lose it! Illannoy has pretty much the same rights expressed in it’s constitution. However, the final caveat states “...subject only to police powers...”! Oh that has worked out so well as exploited by filthy politicians mostly from Cook County/Chicago.
As the article points out, California has similar protections in their constitution as well yet firearm ownership in that state is strictly controlled.
First Amendment rights are also under "strict scrutiny" at the Federal level. It's a good thing.
I am not so sanguine about the government, courts and the evil that lurks in the hearts of man.
I stand corrected.
>
“Strict scrutiny” is technical jargon, meaning that any proposed restriction of the RKBA has the highest possible legal burden to cross. Among other things, the government has to prove that they have no other way to accomplish what they need to accomplish other than restricting that right.
First Amendment rights are also under “strict scrutiny” at the Federal level. It’s a good thing.
>
Reads more like a cop-out as the plain English of the 1st “Congress shall make NO” or the 2nd “shall NOT be infringed.” aren’t difficult to read/comprehend.
I have yet to read of a bill/law ‘clarified’ w/ more jargon.
Has any court in the land ever determined what “shall not be infringed” means?
“Has any court in the land ever determined what “shall not be infringed” means?”
In relation to that, we need a clear understanding of what “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” means. The propose amendment says “ for all legitimate purposes”.
Are there any circumstances which are not legitimate, circumstances under which people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, circumstances under which a person may be prohibited/prevented from keeping and bearing arms, circumstances under which there is no infringement because the right to keep and bear arms is not held under those circumstances?
Exactly. It is a term of art that has a very specific meaning. We wouldn't be having most of the issues we are today if 'strict scrutiny' were universally applied. That is one of the biggest issues I have with current supreme court decisions on the subject. They have been extremely wishy-washy on the level if scrutiny that should be applied.
Are there any circumstances which are not legitimate, circumstances under which people do not have the right to keep and bear arms, circumstances under which a person may be prohibited/prevented from keeping and bearing arms, circumstances under which there is no infringement because the right to keep and bear arms is not held under those circumstances?
They do not have the right when committing violent crimes such as murder, rape, robbery.
They forfeit their rights when they violate the rights of others.
They do not have the right when being held as a prisoner.
Mr. Hogg won’t like this at all!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.