It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Why isnt the 2nd Amendment covered by the Supremacy Clause?
page: 11
share:
My question is, "Why isn't the 2nd Amendment covered by the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) of the U.S. Constitution? Especially in the
State of Illinois?
Article VI, Clause 2 establishes: the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)
Wouldn't it seem that we should be able to carry our guns ANYWHERE in the U.S.A. and the Local and State governments would have no say in it what-so-ever!
We would not have to pay for FOID cards (basically a tax imposed on gun owners in the State of Illinois), or obtain CCW or Open Carry Permits to exercise a right that was thought to be so essential to our American way of life that our Founding Fathers included it in the Constitution of our land.
Dont get me wrong, I am still all for criminal and mental health background checks for anyone that wants to carry (I actually believe that the 2nd Amendment be amended to include these checks, prior to gun ownership) But, why should law abiding citizens that just want to protect themselves, be stopped from doing so, just because some "bleeding heart" Judge decides that he/she doesnt like the thought of all "those" people running around armed, and decides to ignore the law. I guess they feel safer when only the criminals can carry guns whenever they want to.
Article VI, Clause 2 establishes: the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and laws made pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, shall be "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state. (Note that the word "shall" is used, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)
Wouldn't it seem that we should be able to carry our guns ANYWHERE in the U.S.A. and the Local and State governments would have no say in it what-so-ever!
We would not have to pay for FOID cards (basically a tax imposed on gun owners in the State of Illinois), or obtain CCW or Open Carry Permits to exercise a right that was thought to be so essential to our American way of life that our Founding Fathers included it in the Constitution of our land.
Dont get me wrong, I am still all for criminal and mental health background checks for anyone that wants to carry (I actually believe that the 2nd Amendment be amended to include these checks, prior to gun ownership) But, why should law abiding citizens that just want to protect themselves, be stopped from doing so, just because some "bleeding heart" Judge decides that he/she doesnt like the thought of all "those" people running around armed, and decides to ignore the law. I guess they feel safer when only the criminals can carry guns whenever they want to.
If I may hazard a guess? I think it's because the Supreme Court has allowed certain restrictions on weapons owned by citizens, and states or cities
think that allows them to put on more regulations locally. They continue to do this until a court says, "That's enough, too many regulations,"
then the locals try some other approach.
If the Supremes had ruled that any citizen could carry any weapon (and ammunition), in any manner, at any time, in any place, for any reson, then the Supremacy clause would put an end to the discussion.
If the Supremes had ruled that any citizen could carry any weapon (and ammunition), in any manner, at any time, in any place, for any reson, then the Supremacy clause would put an end to the discussion.
new topics
1