laws for private rights, the MORE LIBERAL shall rule.....Firearms too?
Below is a citation form a US Supreme Court ruling. It has never
The Court had to rule between two statutes covering the same subject.
The Court ruled, that if this happens, then the most liberal or GREATER
acknowledgement of private rights, shall control in the application of the law.
In BOYD, this same principle is also supported by the Court.
The case below deals with a treaty, but as we all know, treaties can be
amended or even revoked by Congress at a later date, so Acts of Congress,
Therefore, Acts of Congress control all "laws" which are enacted in
support of the rights of the people of this nation.
And, the Constitution controls what Congress does and whatever law
is enacted for securing the private rights of human beings, if there is
conflict between laws, the more liberal, or the law acknowledging
GREATER LIBERTIES, shall rule.
I also read this to mean, that if there is conflict between an
Act of Congress which secures private rights, and a state law
regarding the same private rights, then whichever law is more
'"LIBERAL", or secure the GREATEST LIBERTY INTEREST,
then the law which secures the GREATER, shall rule.
The case below, was a conflict between a treaty with Britain and the laws
of South Carolina.
The treaty won out, because it secured greater private rights than the laws
of South Carolina did.
So, if Congress enacts a law as how people may privately possess FIREARMS,
then can we logically come to the conclusion, that the Act of Congress, if
it is more LIBERAL in its securing the right to possess firearms, will supersede
any mere podunk state laws that limit or infringe the rights secured by
that Act of Congress for eligible persons to possess firearms?
I say YES!
So if Massachusetts or California or New York or New Jersey, enacts
laws that infringe rights secured by an Act of Congress regarding firearms,
then, according to the US Supreme Court, the GREATER PRIVATE RIGHT
to possess firearms as secured by Congress, shall supersede and
nullify all state laws regarding firearms.
SHANKS v. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242 (1830)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~at page 249 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
""Why ought she not also to be held within the spirit and intent? It is said that the treaty meant to protect the rights of British subjects, who were not also American citizens; but that is assuming the very point in controversy. If the treaty admits of two interpretations, and one is limited, and the other liberal; one which will further, and the other exclude private rights; why should not the most liberal exposition be adopted? The object of the British government must have been to protect all her subjects holding lands in America from the disability of alienage, in respect to descents and sales.""