Every state has it's own constitution

[Robert A Whit]

This is something I have rarely seen mentioned. But as Wikipedia shows, each state has it's own constitution. Some act as if the one we have is just the Feds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_(United_States)

[aboutime]

This is something I have rarely seen mentioned. But as Wikipedia shows, each state has it's own constitution. Some act as if the one we have is just the Feds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_(United_States)



No Robert. As it turns out. Since you seem to always fail to recognize that others are as informed as you think they are NOT. You come here to patronize the rest of us, thinking Only You have the ability to learn, read, and understand History.

[jimnyc]

This is something I have rarely seen mentioned. But as Wikipedia shows, each state has it's own constitution. Some act as if the one we have is just the Feds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_(United_States)

The state constitution only applies to a resident of a state, being in that state. The US constitution applies throughout the nation regardless of where the being is at. We have rights as US citizens and then further rights under the state in which we reside. In my state of NY, while the constitution is VERY long, it solely applies to NY and would, IMO, be worthless to me without the US constitution, unless rewritten to grant me the same rights as in the COTUS. Very similar and yet so very different.

[Robert A Whit]

No Robert. As it turns out. Since you seem to always fail to recognize that others are as informed as you think they are NOT. You come here to patronize the rest of us, thinking Only You have the ability to learn, read, and understand History.

You don't give a damned what post I make so long as you get to try to pick fights.

Maybe I don't need to read more of your posts. At least when you talk i am not in the habit of making snotty remarks to you.

What is your problem?

You want to read a decent reply?

Take note of what Jimmy said and he was not snotty about it.

[Robert A Whit]

The state constitution only applies to a resident of a state, being in that state. The US constitution applies throughout the nation regardless of where the being is at. We have rights as US citizens and then further rights under the state in which we reside. In my state of NY, while the constitution is VERY long, it solely applies to NY and would, IMO, be worthless to me without the US constitution, unless rewritten to grant me the same rights as in the COTUS. Very similar and yet so very different.

I agree entirely with your well stated reply. Too bad the other dude got snotty in his comments.

Tell me this though. Do you agree that in general states act to curtail your rights as opposed to adding to them?

Take PA for instance. PA is very easy on owning Guns.
CA on the other hand jails you for what is approved by states like PA and TX.

I am not clear how NY deals with guns. I suspect it is difficult to bear arms in NY State.

[Kathianne]

State constitutions must align with Federal. Dontcha know that, Robert?

[Robert A Whit]

State constitutions must align with Federal. Dontcha know that, Robert?

Well, then explain why CA won't allow guns in the passenger part of my car but a state like TX or PA will?

I ask one more time. Please stop making it about me. I try to not make my posts about what you say in a personal fashion.

It is geting old noticing that when Jim posts he does not make it personal but you and About time persist in making it personal as If I offended you.

[Kathianne]

Well, then explain why CA won't allow guns in the passenger part of my car but a state like TX or PA will?

I ask one more time. Please stop making it about me. I try to not make my posts about what you say in a personal fashion.

It is geting old noticing that when Jim posts he does not make it personal but you and About time persist in making it personal as If I offended you.

State laws are subordinate to federal, get it?

[jimnyc]

I agree entirely with your well stated reply. Too bad the other dude got snotty in his comments.

Tell me this though. Do you agree that in general states act to curtail your rights as opposed to adding to them?

Take PA for instance. PA is very easy on owning Guns.
CA on the other hand jails you for what is approved by states like PA and TX.

I am not clear how NY deals with guns. I suspect it is difficult to bear arms in NY State.

NY is one of the worst. It's next to impossible to get a carry permit in NY. Hell, don't even have a gun near you, even if from another state, even with a permit, even if unloaded, unless that sucker is in the trunk in a time locked safe! LOL Seriously though, the gun laws in NY are way too strict in my opinion.

I'm not a constitutional scholar or anything like that, but I don't think a state can curtail ones rights to an extent, as the COTUS should take precedence over the state. A state I suppose can have their own regulations and restrictions, but I don't think they can take away rights granted by the COTUS. PA, TX and CA might all have different rights pertaining to carry permits and how one can move their guns around, but I don't think any of them can outlaw guns, which is a right from the COTUS.

[Robert A Whit]

State laws are subordinate to federal, get it?

So, you won't explain to me how CA has much stricter laws huh?

A case illustrates this. When Jose Canseco, a pro baseball player (ret) played for the Oakland A's he drove his Ferrari to San Francisco and had an unloaded pistol in or about the passenger seat area. CA arrested him and I can't quite recall if he spent time in jail but I do remember he got the hell fined out of him. So how is the CA law subordinate?

[Robert A Whit]

NY is one of the worst. It's next to impossible to get a carry permit in NY. Hell, don't even have a gun near you, even if from another state, even with a permit, even if unloaded, unless that sucker is in the trunk in a time locked safe! LOL Seriously though, the gun laws in NY are way too strict in my opinion.

I'm not a constitutional scholar or anything like that, but I don't think a state can curtail ones rights to an extent, as the COTUS should take precedence over the state. A state I suppose can have their own regulations and restrictions, but I don't think they can take away rights granted by the COTUS. PA, TX and CA might all have different rights pertaining to carry permits and how one can move their guns around, but I don't think any of them can outlaw guns, which is a right from the COTUS.

So, NY like CA never learned their lesson from the case in DC I suppose.
CA law removes the right to bear arms. Also it puts heavy restrictions to whom gets one.

If you want a taste, you might want to look up Jose Canseco when he played baseball for the Oakland As and was arrested for a pistol in his car not in the trunk. I don't know how states get away from restricting rights on guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Canseco#Legal_issues
On April 11, 1989, Canseco was arrested in California for carrying a loaded semi-automatic pistol in his car.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-Juiced-30) He was released on $2,500 bail and pled no contest.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-31)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-32)

Note. on the above. It does not mention that his Ferrari was parked and somebody spotted his pistol in his car. I think but may be wrong that the gun was on the floor. With the money he was making at the time, said fine would be like a tip to a waiter.

[Kathianne]

So, you won't explain to me how CA has much stricter laws huh?

A case illustrates this. When Jose Canseco, a pro baseball player (ret) played for the Oakland A's he drove his Ferrari to San Francisco and had an unloaded pistol in or about the passenger seat area. CA arrested him and I can't quite recall if he spent time in jail but I do remember he got the hell fined out of him. So how is the CA law subordinate?

Huh? Don't get your analogy right away and not spending time with that.

Question on the books for today, a couple states made marijuana legal in some form a week ago, Tuesday. The question now is, will the Fed exercise their dominance? Marijuana is illegal via fed law.

We'll wait it out, thought for medicinal purposes, passed by CA, the Feds have interdicted.

[aboutime]

Huh? Don't get your analogy right away and not spending time with that.

Question on the books for today, a couple states made marijuana legal in some form a week ago, Tuesday. The question now is, will the Fed exercise their dominance? Marijuana is illegal via fed law.

We'll wait it out, thought for medicinal purposes, passed by CA, the Feds have interdicted.


Kathianne. Along those same lines...as in smoking. Will the new marijuana laws reverse the former Smoking restrictions for smokers who smoke LEGAL smoking products? If they make MJ legal...and it does create smoke. What about second hand smoke that all of the whiners always complain about?
What about all of the NO SMOKING AREA's created by Anti-Smoking gangs? Will they suddenly become Smoking area's if MJ is legal???

I am only asking because I smoked for 50 years, and watched as smokers became the first to be punished DUE TO whiners being offended with smoke.

[Robert A Whit]

Huh? Don't get your analogy right away and not spending time with that.

Question on the books for today, a couple states made marijuana legal in some form a week ago, Tuesday. The question now is, will the Fed exercise their dominance? Marijuana is illegal via fed law.

We'll wait it out, thought for medicinal purposes, passed by CA, the Feds have interdicted.

Why do you reply then tell me you refuse to explain your view or deal with my question?

Here in CA the local cops won't bother with such busts. The Feds harass CA pot stores and some cities cut down the number of stores to a bare minimum. See what the city of San Jose did if you are interested in how it created a law as to number of stores.

[Robert A Whit]

Kathianne. Along those same lines...as in smoking. Will the new marijuana laws reverse the former Smoking restrictions for smokers who smoke LEGAL smoking products? If they make MJ legal...and it does create smoke. What about second hand smoke that all of the whiners always complain about?
What about all of the NO SMOKING AREA's created by Anti-Smoking gangs? Will they suddenly become Smoking area's if MJ is legal???

I am only asking because I smoked for 50 years, and watched as smokers became the first to be punished DUE TO whiners being offended with smoke.

I started smoking a pipe at age 24 while in the Army in Germany.

I smoked from 1963 until 1978 and cold turkey for 3 years. Thinking I could get away with smoking once in a while, I took up that bad habit around 1981 and that hooked me until 1985.

Now, I was working in a large office at the time and had my own office with a closed door.

One day the Broker I then worked for came to my office and told me that my smoking was messing up the office and salesmen were whining.

Well, I got indignant. I explained the door was closed and the Broker being a good pal of mine kind of let it go.

A few days later, he told me I was to move out of the office on the first floor and could use a much larger office upstairs. Well, that got my smoke away from the bottom floor. The new office, much larger was unfinished. It was not a decent office as was the bottom floor.

My stubborn nature cost me a decent office.

Today since I have not smoked in the past 27 years I can tell you right now that smokers often don't give a damn who they offend. I know that happened in my case.

But I can't stand being a round smoking today.

My brother came to visit once and smoked in my new car. I told him I wouldl pull off the road so he could smoke but not in my car.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne. Along those same lines...as in smoking. Will the new marijuana laws reverse the former Smoking restrictions for smokers who smoke LEGAL smoking products? If they make MJ legal...and it does create smoke. What about second hand smoke that all of the whiners always complain about?
What about all of the NO SMOKING AREA's created by Anti-Smoking gangs? Will they suddenly become Smoking area's if MJ is legal???

I am only asking because I smoked for 50 years, and watched as smokers became the first to be punished DUE TO whiners being offended with smoke.

Nothing will undo the smoking bans, they are more strict than the mj laws. Both state and fed. Only in America could a legal product be targeted for both taxes and social ostracism. Oh yeah, and be taxed to a degree that other countries laugh.

[jimnyc]

So, NY like CA never learned their lesson from the case in DC I suppose.
CA law removes the right to bear arms. Also it puts heavy restrictions to whom gets one.

If you want a taste, you might want to look up Jose Canseco when he played baseball for the Oakland As and was arrested for a pistol in his car not in the trunk. I don't know how states get away from restricting rights on guns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jose_Canseco#Legal_issues
On April 11, 1989, Canseco was arrested in California for carrying a loaded semi-automatic pistol in his car.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-Juiced-30) He was released on $2,500 bail and pled no contest.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-31)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-32)

Note. on the above. It does not mention that his Ferrari was parked and somebody spotted his pistol in his car. I think but may be wrong that the gun was on the floor. With the money he was making at the time, said fine would be like a tip to a waiter.


They removed the right, or have heavy restrictions? An individual can still have a right to bear arms and still have heavy restrictions on how they can carry and transport said weapon.