State Provisions for RKBA

B

Bulldog44

New member
Does the Constitution of the state in which you live include a provision for the right to keep and bear arms? If so, what is the actual wording of the text?


In Alabama, Article I of the Constitution of 1901 lists the "Declaration of Rights".


Section 26 of Article I states the following:

That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Click to expand...


A couple of other interesting things I've noted in the Declaration of Rights follow:

Section 25 of Article I:

That the sole object and only legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and property, and when the government assumes other functions it is usurpation and oppression.
Click to expand...

and Section 2 of Article I:

That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit; and that, therefore, they have at all times an
inalienable and indefeasible right to change their form of government in such manner as they may deem expedient.
Click to expand...
 
L

LonWilson

New member
State of Florida

SECTION 8. Right to bear arms.--

(a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.

(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.

(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

--------

I believe we are the only state in the union to have such gun control in our state constitution, thanks to our rather lax constitutional initiative petition system and pro-gun forces simply being ineffective since the passage of shall-issue CCW in 1987.

Needless to say, I want to leave this state. Probably will be heading to Indiana or Ohio.
 
T

Thumper

New member
Dadgummit...

I thought my home state could do better than this:

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
Click to expand...

Oh well...beats the hell outta Jersey. :rolleyes:
 
M

Monkeyleg

New member
For Wisconsin: "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose"

With two cases concerning concealed carry before the state supreme court right now, it should be very interesting to see how the learned justices read that simple statement.
 
A

ahenry

New member
Thumper (and whoever else might care)

Dadgummit... I thought my home state could do better than this:
Click to expand...

While I completely agree that the clause about “wearing” in our constitution is incredibly depressing, you might (or might not) be interested to know that the original constitution had no such qualifiers. Under the constitution of 1845 (which is what was used when we first became a state) that clause wasn’t there. It wasn’t until reconstruction (and the constitution of 1876) that the additional statement, “but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.” was added. As a matter of fact all prior constitutions (1836, 1845, 1866) had no reference to regulation of the wearing of arms like you see in todays constitution that was written at the end of reconstruction. The constitution of 1866 was an attempt to appease the “radical republicans” in Washington who were in charge of reconstruction in Texas. As you can see it apparently didn’t do enough to satisfy them.

So you know:
Constitution of the Republic established in 1836: Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the Republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power.

Constitution of 1845: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself of the State.

Constitution of 1866 Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State.

Constitution of 1876: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.


Ah, the far reaching impacts of the War Between the States.
 
D

DMK

New member
North Carolina:

Sec. 2. Sovereignty of the people.
All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole.


Sec. 30. Militia and the right to bear arms.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice


http://www.ncleg.net/html2001/LegInfo/constitution/ncconstitution.html

I see a lot of contradiction here: "The Right to bear should not be infringed. Oh, well except we're not saying that you can bear everywhere. Well, see that all depends on how you define infringed."

Methinks they need to look at Sec. 2 again.
 
T

Thumper

New member
ahenry

Thanks for the info. I really like the 1836 clause.

I vaguely remembered the part about the 1876 change. I guess that mandatory Texas History class all those years ago wasn't completely fruitless.
 
K

Kharn

New member
Maryland has no direct constitutional provision for privately owned arms, but does have the following:

Art. 28. That a well regulated Militia is the proper and natural defence of a free Government.

Art. 29. That Standing Armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised, or kept up, without the consent of the Legislature.

Art. 30. That in all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to, and control of, the civil power.

Art. 31. That no soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, except in the manner prescribed by Law.

Art. 32. That no person except regular soldiers, marines, and mariners in the service of this State, or militia, when in actual service, ought, in any case, to be subject to, or punishable by Martial Law.
Click to expand...

Gov. Glendenning says we should lock up all our guns and grab our ankles, cause here it comes again.

Kharn
 
B

bikeguy

New member
GA - Art. 1, Sec. 1, Para. 8:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."
 
K

KSFreeman

New member
Indiana=Article I, §32, what Chris II sez.

Chris II, defend the State? Yeah, sure. What if we are invaded by Illinois? Do we really want a bunch of Chicago politicians running our city?

When Blojo wins, we will be invaded!:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top