The Legal Battleground: California's Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and Constitutional Overreach
States cannot choose to disobey the Constitution. However, like any entity, they can choose to interpret what they think or wish it means and do so, unless someone has an issue with it and prevails. This is the way of almost every constitutional law issue.
Understanding the U.S. Constitution as the Supreme Law
The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Usually, lawmakers who aren’t familiar with the law sometimes make laws that conflict with the Constitution. In such cases, these laws are considered unconstitutional or unlawful. When lawmakers do not adhere to the Constitution, they risk creating amendments that overstep the boundaries laid out by this fundamental document.
Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment
The 2nd Amendment is predominantly for national defense, as it was established in 1791. As people join the National Guard, a well-regulated militia, or the military, they are exercising their right to bear arms, often without even considering the Second Amendment to provide "security of a free state." This implies that the amendment is not exclusively for personal gun ownership, but rather for the collective purpose of securing the nation.
Gun lobbyists, including gun makers and sellers, support the misconception that the Second Amendment serves personal gun ownership because it generates substantial revenue for them. This industry advocates for laws that allow for expansive gun rights, which is often justified by the economic interests at stake rather than the constitutional intent. However, the truth is that the Constitution was not originally intended to enable individual gun ownership absent a regulatory context.
Legal Challenges and Interpretations
When it comes to the legal challenges of such amendments, the process often involves suing the state or the federal government. States can pass any laws they can muster enough support for. If challenged, they simply claim that the law is constitutional. Then it takes someone or a group to sue the state and have a judge decide if the law is or is not constitutional. This process can go as far as the State Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court.
Legal action in such cases is usually very expensive. When you are suing the state or federal government, it can become outrageously extensive. Therefore, unless it becomes a class-action lawsuit or someone has deep pockets, the law could stand.
Whether a law is enforceable or not is a different question. This depends on the people it affects and/or the agencies charged with enforcing it. In some cases, state or local law enforcement agencies have refused to enforce a law that they consider unconstitutional. This was recently exemplified in New Mexico, where a gubernatorial executive order was not enforced by local law enforcement agencies.
Conclusion
States must adhere to the Constitution, even when it conflicts with their personal or economic interests. While they can interpret the law as they see fit, their actions must ultimately align with the overarching principles outlined in the Constitution. Legal challenges provide a crucial avenue for ensuring that state laws comply with federal constitutional standards, safeguarding the rights and security of the nation.