Sixteenth American Juriprudence, Second Edition, Section 177: "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having formed in nature of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of decision so branding it. An unconstitutional law in legal contemplation is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.
Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it.
No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."
Arkansas Supreme Court: "...the arms which it [the Second Amendment] guarantees American citizens the right to keep and bear, are such as are needful to, and ordinarily used by a well regulated militia, and such as are necessary and suitable to a free people, to enable them to resist oppression, prevent usurpation, repel invasion, etc., etc." Fife v. State [31 Ark. 455, 458, 25 Am. Rep. 556]
District of Columbia Court of Appeals: "... that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen ..." Carolyn Warren et al, Appellants v. District of Columbia, et al, Appellees, No. 79-6, [444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981) (1982)]
Georgia: "Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed;" The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and hear arms of every description, not merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688,
conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right." Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846)
Michigan Supreme Court: "It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. If the right were limited to those enrolled [by the government in the militia], the purpose of this guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is that the people from whom the militia must be taken shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose." Justice Thomas McIntyre Cooley in General Principles of Constitutional Law, 1898
North Carolina Supreme Court: "The practical and safe construction is that which must have been in the minds of those who framed our organic law. The intention was to embrace the `arms,' an acquaintance with whose use was necessary for their protection against the usurpation of illegal power - such as rifles, muskets, shotguns, swords and pistols. These are now but little used in war; still they are such weapons that they or their like can still be considered as `arms' which they [the people] have a right to bear" State v. Kerner [181 NC 574, 107 SE 222, 224-25]
North Carolina Supreme Court: "For any lawful purpose - either of business or amusement - the citizen is at perfect liberty to carry his gun." State v. Huntly [3 Iredell 418, 422, 423 (1843)]
North Carolina Court of Appeals: "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice [376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)]
Oregon Supreme Court: "[I]f the text and purpose of the constitutional guarantee relied exclusively on the preference for a militia `for defense of the State,' then the term `arms' most likely would include only the modern day equivalents of the weapons used by the colonial militiamen" State v. Kessler [289 Or. 359, 369, 614 p. 2d 94, 99]
Pennsylvania State Superior Court: "This court has recognized that objects do not acquire `guilt by association' merely because they are owned by a person who has engaged in criminal conduct." Majority opinion by Judge John J. Kelly, Jr and Senior Judge John G. Brosky, Wasilowski vs Allegheny County, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, December 16, 1993
Tennessee Supreme Court: "... the rifle of all descriptions, the shot-gun, the musket and repeater are such arms; and that under the constitution the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed or forbidden by the legislature" Andrews v. State [50 Tenn. 165, 179, 8 Am. Rep. 8, 14]
Tennessee Supreme Court: "By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the state to keep and bear arms for their defense, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature..." Simpson v. State [5 Yerg. (Tenn.) 356, 359, 360 (1833)]
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals: "govermental purpose to control or prohibit certain activities . . . may not be achieved by means that sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the realm of protected freedoms, such as the right to keep and bear arms guarenteed in our state constitution." State ex rel city of Princeton v. Buckner [377 S.E. 2d (W. Va. 1988)]