Bill of Rights 10A

[fslater 62]

I was on the forum reading recent posts and started bouncing around the web looking for references to justify or discourage the legitimacy of some statements when I came across this

 

Bill Of Rights 10A

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Does this not imply that the States are one entity and the people a separate entity thus total disqualifying antigun arguments that,  2A is a collective not individual right (which has been decided on by the supreme court but still being disputed by liberals).

And in that context, the wording of 2A says "being  necessary to the security of a free State" "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If 10A puts the state and the people separate, doesn't 2A state that the right is the peoples right (exclusively) and makes no mention of the State having any say in the matter except they may not infringe on it?

 

I'm sure I'm not the first person to see this and like I said 2A says its the right of the people no where does it say right of the state (even to regulate). Can some one tell me where this analogy has been shot down in the legal system? 

[muzzelloader69 9]

the second amendment , bill of rights , constitution, and any other rights we are supposed to have , DONT exist in new jersey.   

[Polak 3]

The NJ constitution:

 

ARTICLE I

RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

 

1. All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.

 

2. a. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.

 

b. The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress. The Legislature shall enact laws to provide for such recall elections. Any such laws shall include a provision that a recall election shall be held upon petition of at least 25% of the registered voters in the electoral district of the official sought to be recalled. If legislation to implement this constitutional amendment is not enacted within one year of the adoption of the amendment, the Secretary of State shall, by regulation, implement the constitutional amendment, except that regulations adopted by the Secretary of State shall be superseded by any subsequent legislation consistent with this constitutional amendment governing recall elections. The sufficiency of any statement of reasons or grounds procedurally required shall be a political rather than a judicial question.

 

3. No person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor under any pretense whatever be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his faith and judgment; nor shall any person be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing any church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right or has deliberately and voluntarily engaged to perform.

 

4. There shall be no establishment of one religious sect in preference to another; no religious or racial test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust.

 

5. No person shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil or military right, nor be discriminated against in the exercise of any civil or military right, nor be segregated in the militia or in the public schools, because of religious principles, race, color, ancestry or national origin.

 

6. Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. No law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. In all prosecutions or indictments for libel, the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted; and the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the fact.

 

7. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the papers and things to be seized.

 

8. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense, unless on the presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases of impeachment, or in cases now prosecuted without indictment, or arising in the army or navy or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger.

 

9. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate; but the Legislature may authorize the trial of civil causes by a jury of six persons. The Legislature may provide that in any civil cause a verdict may be rendered by not less than five-sixths of the jury. The Legislature may authorize the trial of the issue of mental incompetency without a jury.

 

10. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel in his defense.

 

11.No person shall, after acquittal, be tried for the same offense. All persons shall, before conviction, be eligible for pretrial release. Pretrial release may be denied to a person if the court finds that no amount of monetary bail, non-monetary conditions of pretrial release, or combination of monetary bail and non-monetary conditions would reasonably assure the person's appearance in court when required, or protect the safety of any other person or the community, or prevent the person from obstructing or attempting to obstruct the criminal justice process. It shall be lawful for the Legislature to establish by law procedures, terms, and conditions applicable to pretrial release and the denial thereof authorized under this provision.

[weekend_junkie 129]

Yeah, I, with

I was on the forum reading recent posts and started bouncing around the web looking for references to justify or discourage the legitimacy of some statements when I came across this

 

Bill Of Rights 10A

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

Does this not imply that the States are one entity and the people a separate entity thus total disqualifying antigun arguments that,  2A is a collective not individual right (which has been decided on by the supreme court but still being disputed by liberals).

And in that context, the wording of 2A says "being  necessary to the security of a free State" "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. If 10A puts the state and the people separate, doesn't 2A state that the right is the peoples right (exclusively) and makes no mention of the State having any say in the matter except they may not infringe on it?

 

I'm sure I'm not the first person to see this and like I said 2A says its the right of the people no where does it say right of the state (even to regulate). Can some one tell me where this analogy has been shot down in the legal system?

 

I am not a lawyer, but I do play one on TV. Here goes:

 

I'm with you in this one. Specificity in the US BOR 1-9 should, by virtue of the 10amdt, provide sufficient exclusivity that federal law is the rule here. The trick is that NJ has satisfied the US Supreme Court that it is in compliance with the 2a. The argument should need to go back up to a "case law IS law" approach wherein these independent circuit decisions are applied uniformly across all regions.

 

Is Miranda different in certain states?

Can police quarter in certain states without congressional action?

[Newtonian 453]

Our founders did not foresee states pre-empting their brilliant Bill of Rights. I've never studied law but I have to assume they figured something like free speech or self defense or states' rights would not be argued, 200+ years later, for example under the legal fiction of collective vs. individual right. They probably could not have imagined that their plain language would be misinterpreted. That legislatures would create all sorts of exceptions.

 

For all his brilliance, Madison should have foreseen the nonsense his "militia"clause might cause. Any native English speaker knows he could just as well have said, "The price of oysters at Penny's Taverne being less on Tewesday than on Saturn's Day, the right of the people to keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed." In other words, the preface means absolutely nothing in the lingo. And if it does let's have a constitutional convention and change it.

[jackandjill 683]

The People, State and Feds are three separate things. However, I believe, at the time, people and state(s) were wary of some federal institution (rightfully so) coming in and taking away rights in the name of consolidation.  So we ended up with the language that we see today.

 

I think even Anti's know that its individual right. But they are trying to find a loophole (where one doesnt exist) and have courts rule that 2A as written is binding on Feds only and is written between States and Feds.  By proving its a contract between States and Feds only, Antis hope restrictions like that of NJ and IL will stand as it is States that is restricting / eliminating the individual right to self defense.  Although not required, having equivalent 2A in State constitution helps in such scenario.

 

Unfortunately, NJ State Constitution did not codify 2A equivalent. It gave scumbags free reign in terms of doing what they want without fear of being called Traitors.

 

Regardless of any codification (or lack of) or language used, natural right to self defense always exists. Without it, no man is a free man.  Even animals have that right.

 

Taking scent glands off a Skunk is considered cruel. Removing poison glads off snakes, debeaking, declawing birds, hawks etc is not natural and cruel. Same goes to taking away a man/woman/child's self defense tools, especially in the time of need. 

 

In an ideal world, it could be argued that State facilitated individual murder (where it happens due to lack of such right) by taking self defense tools away.

[mreinecker 0]

This stuff makes me so angry to read about because we all know there is no case here, yet somehow we are in this situation in NJ and there's not a darn thing I can do to change it.

[Donato 0]

I'm doing something about it. I am collecting signatures right now to appear on the democratic primary ballot for district 3 assemblyman. I have done all the research over the last year to be in full compliance with all the election laws and campagin finance reporting. Even if I don't win I am learning much about the process to serve as a model for others to follow.

[1LtCAP 4,262]

I'm doing something about it. I am collecting signatures right now to appear on the democratic primary ballot for district 3 assemblyman. I have done all the research over the last year to be in full compliance with all the election laws and campagin finance reporting. Even if I don't win I am learning much about the process to serve as a model for others to follow.

good luck sir!!!! keep us up to speed!!

[Donato 0]

good luck sir!!!! keep us up to speed!!

Thanks. I will. I could always use help. E-mail [email protected] to help out if you live in district 3 or know someone that does.