If you're applying for your CCDW and wish to track your progress or, if you have questions about applying for a Delaware CCDW, post here.
 #92446  by Owen
 
scampbell3 wrote:Stephpd is correct. The U.S. Constitution not only defines the form and function of the Federal government, but also enumerates the specific powers that the individual States turned over to the Federal government. The U.S. Constitution is, and was indented to place restrictions on the Federal government only...not the individual States.

The 10th Amendment also states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".

This means that anything outside of the 17 enumerated powers is delegated to the People and/or States.

This is why each State has a State Constitution. If the US Constitution was the defining power for all States, this would mean that there would be no need for each State to have a Constitution. The Founders' intent was for a limited central government whereby a majority of the power to govern remained with the People in each State.

How far we have fallen.

Chip
This goes back to State laws being subservient to the Federal Constitution the So called Supremacy Clause:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
This principle has been tested in court time and time again where a State law is found to be unconstitutional based on the Federal Constitution and the State law is thrown out.

Then there is also the Fourteenth Amendment where it says:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
These are Federalist ideas which in general I don't like, but I think I am arguing for them in this case! :shock: Still I think we need to fix gun laws in DE if we don't like them.
 #92448  by stephpd
 
Owen wrote:I re-read some of this thread and I am embarrassed to admit that in my zeal to reply I think I missed Stephpd's point, sorry. :oops:

I think his point was a pragmatic "that's the way it is. If you don't like it then work to change the law through legislation". Am I right?

Yeah. If we want Constitutional carry it's going to have to happen at the state level and through legislation.

Hoping for the court to overturn decades of rulings on concealed carry just doesn't seem likely. Unless it goes the Steven's route and becomes not an individual right. :poed:
 #92452  by Owen
 
stephpd wrote:Yeah. If we want Constitutional carry it's going to have to happen at the state level and through legislation.

Hoping for the court to overturn decades of rulings on concealed carry just doesn't seem likely. Unless it goes the Steven's route and becomes not an individual right. :poed:
Interesting, thanks for pointing that out. The fact that DE has a "statement of purpose" in our state constitution could protect from that. We could argue against any federal limit on the 2A to the "collective" within our state. That would definitely be a states rights vs federal authority issue.