the 2nd amendment conflicts with article 1 sec.10 clause 1 of the costitiution (1 Viewer)

[shatteredxdreams8]

OK I've got a question? people debate about the right to bear arms in the United States, people that are against it say that the reason the U.S. constitutional writers wrote "the right to bear arms" was so that the states would be able to maintain a state militia, but in Article I sec.10 clause 1 of the Constitution it says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." so according to that it would outlaw state militia so therefore proving that amendment 2 of the constitution was not made to let states maintain there state militias..

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK I've got a question? people debate about the right to bear arms in the United States, people that are against it say that the reason the U.S. constitutional writers wrote "the right to bear arms" was so that the states would be able to maintain a state militia, but in Article I sec.10 clause 1 of the Constitution it says "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility." so according to that it would outlaw state militia so therefore proving that amendment 2 of the constitution was not made to let states maintain there state militias..

You mean Article I sec 10:3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This clause refers to standing active duty troops, like those of the federal governmet, not militia. Militia and "troops" are seperate concepts, as can easily be seen in Article I sec 8 in that it is clearly dealt with seperately from the standing military.

In any event, 2 things:
1- The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people, and therefore the restriction in I-10: woudl not apply;
2- The 2nd Amendment modifies and superceedes any relevant portion of the Constitution already in place at the time of its ratification,

 

[HTColeman]

You mean Article I sec 10:3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

This clause refers to standing active duty troops, like those of the federal governmet, not militia. Militia and "troops" are seperate concepts, as can easily be seen in Article I sec 8 in that it is clearly dealt with seperately from the standing military.

In any event, 2 things:
1- The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people, and therefore the restriction in I-10: woudl not apply;
2- The 2nd Amendment modifies and superceedes any relevant portion of the Constitution already in place at the time of its ratification,

1st, an amendment does not supercede any other part of the constitution unless it specifically says so, for example prohibition.

Also, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal gov't, it has not been incorporated by any supreme court case to state gov'ts. So any state is bound not bound to honor that.

 

[Goobieman]

1st, an amendment does not supercede any other part of the constitution unless it specifically says so, for example prohibition.

An amendment, being something that AMENDS the constitution, by definition, superceeds any relevant part of the Constitution that exists at the time the amendment is ratified. It need not specifically say so.

Also, the 2nd amendment only applies to the federal gov't, it has not been incorporated by any supreme court case to state gov'ts. So any state is bound not bound to honor that.

Yet.

And given that all the other amendments that have been incorporated against the states through the 14th amendment, why woudl the 2nd also not be incorporated?

 

[HTColeman]

Yet.

And given that all the other amendments that have been incorporated against the states through the 14th amendment, why woudl the 2nd also not be incorporated?

I'm not saying it wouldn't be, but no weapons case such as this has ever gone to the supreme court, so until then, the states could ban all weapons in their state.

 

[Goobieman]

I'm not saying it wouldn't be, but no weapons case such as this has ever gone to the supreme court, so until then, the states could ban all weapons in their state.

Assuming that the state coinstitutions do not have similar protections. Many do.

And any such ban would guarantee a trip to the SCotUS, with incorporation soon to follow.