(February 19, 2018 at 6:45 pm)Tiberius Wrote:(February 19, 2018 at 6:30 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: "Unalienable" in the context of Missouri's right to bear arms means that it's not to be routinely fucked with.
= "shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity."
The problem with the concept of "unalienable" is it's unconstitutional. The fact that amendments can be made to the constitution is proof that none of these sections are actually unalienable. People can argue that the language of the section says this or that, but there's nothing stopping the government, with enough votes, from repealing that section or replacing the text.
(February 19, 2018 at 6:48 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Also worth pointing out that a federal ban on guns could not be countered by a state constitution guaranteeing a right to keep and bear arms. Federal laws trump state laws.
State laws can usually be more restrictive that federal laws, but they can't be less restrictive.
As far as the "unalienable" comment goes that's why the New Hampshire State Constitution states that the people have the right and obligation to start a revolution when the government critters become assholes. The personal right for white people to own slaves was the first Constitutional right revoked by the Federal government. Now no one in America can own slaves.
As for State Constitutions versus the Federal Constitution the State Constitutions can grant more rights tun the Federal Constitution or they can be more restrictive. For instance, there's no official language clause in the Federal Constitution. A person can speak hill-billy Martian if he wants to and the Federal government would have to accommodate him. But a State can tell the guy to go screw himself on Phobos and speak English. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gov...48ec13f926