Maybe, Maybe not neither of us were there!
New York City Is Still Running from Supreme Court Review of Gun Laws
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
Maybe, Maybe not neither of us were there!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I mean about the natural rights of the Constitution applying to the states. It would make absolutely no sense for it to apply only to the federal government while the states can restrict your freedom of speech, religion, right to bear arms, right to a speedy trial, ect. It was an oversight that has been corrected if it indeed did not apply before.
I believe it did apply however. Why? Article 6 of the United States Constitution wasn’t drafted afterwards. It clearly states...
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
10th Amendment V Article 6?
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.
10th Amendment - constitution | Laws.com
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.
10th Amendment - constitution | Laws.com
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
No. Just plain Article 6. There are a bunch of Articles that precede the Bill of Rights. Article 6 deals with the Supremacy Clause.
The 10th Amendment just says that the powers not delegated (given) to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states (Self explanatory. The Constitution not prohibiting something to the states) are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
It makes no mention of the Bill of Rights not being valid in a state because those aren’t powers given to the government. Those are what the government cannot do the citizenry. Those are prohibitions. No where in that clause does it say that the constitution does not apply to the states. All it says is that any power not given to United States by the government or anything prohibiting the states by the constitution are reserved to the states or the people. That’s it.
Article 6 specifically says that the Constitution, and the Laws of the United States are the Supreme law of the land despite state laws. That’s why a state can never contradict federal law. At least they aren’t supposed to.
Acer-m14
.950 JDJ
back wen Cali went legal pot and shops started up .. the FED's came in and raided them because it was still against FED law ..
wish ICE would step up and raid all these Mayor's or Governors for sanctuary places
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/10/13/was-the-bill-of-rights-meant-to-apply-to-the-states/
The words “its powers” clearly refer back to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was intended to “prevent misconstruction or abuse” of the Constitution’s powers as exercised through “the government” – the federal government. Notice the word government is not plural. The Bill of Rights makes no mention of state governments. In fact, the state ratifying conventions had no intention of restricting their state’s own powers. They already had state constitutions to do that job.
gun_slinger_boy
.338 Win Mag
I don't want to argue rulings but just want to say how insidious the term dangerous and unusual is. A catch 22 really. Being unusual is a nonsense criteria to ban or restrict something. If it's banned/restricted how can it ever become common? I first think of silencers when thinking about unusual. If they weren't so damn hard to get they would be common overnight! And then there is dangerous. What isn't dangerous? Cars are dangerous, knives are dangerous sugary drinks are dangerous. And there are certainly many unusual items in each of those categories. Funny how dangerous and unusual only applies to guns huh?
spat
.700 Nitro Express
There is something to be said for the difference in wording between the 1A and the 2A.
The 1A says "congress shall pass no law" which inherently limits the feds and not the states.
The 2A says just "shall not be infringed" which is much stronger language and binds every level of government, and even some quasi government entities as it turns the RKBA into a fundamental human right.
If you can provide a link I would gladly read it. Every thing I have found says the Bill of Rights (all of them!) only applied to the Federal Government, until the SCOTUS incorporated them to the States through the 14th Amendment's Due Process.
@spat this is from a link I posted in thread #82
The Original Bill of Rights Limited the Federal Government, But Not the States
Two provisions of the Bill of Rights--the First Amendment, which specifically refers to "Congress," and the second clause of the Seventh Amendment, which refers to federal courts--make clear by their language that they are only limits on federal action. The balance of the Bill of Rights, however, sets out rights of the People that, taken at face value, could be said to bar infringements by the states and their sub-divisions as well as by the federal government.
Yet that was not how the Bill of Rights was originally understood. In the first Congress, James Madison proposed an amendment that would bar states from violating "the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." The proposal was defeated, largely because Madison's fellow representatives saw the Bill of Rights as a check on the federal government alone. State constitutions, they thought, already provided whatever rights were needed against state (and local) violations.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the original Bill of Rights only limited the federal government in the 1833 case of Barron v. City of Baltimore.
The Original Bill of Rights Limited the Federal Government, But Not the States
Two provisions of the Bill of Rights--the First Amendment, which specifically refers to "Congress," and the second clause of the Seventh Amendment, which refers to federal courts--make clear by their language that they are only limits on federal action. The balance of the Bill of Rights, however, sets out rights of the People that, taken at face value, could be said to bar infringements by the states and their sub-divisions as well as by the federal government.
Yet that was not how the Bill of Rights was originally understood. In the first Congress, James Madison proposed an amendment that would bar states from violating "the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." The proposal was defeated, largely because Madison's fellow representatives saw the Bill of Rights as a check on the federal government alone. State constitutions, they thought, already provided whatever rights were needed against state (and local) violations.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the original Bill of Rights only limited the federal government in the 1833 case of Barron v. City of Baltimore.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
No. No. No. The Constitution is more than the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. You should know that. Did you read the preceding Articles to the Bill of Rights? There are quite a few articles . In then they describe the powers of the President, Congress, Supremacy Clause, compensation, the election process, ect.
In Article 6 which deals with the Supremacy Clause it clearly states that the Constitution applies to the States.
Please read them.
The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
And you are clearly misreading the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The Powers are the powers granted to them the Constitution. The Bill of Rights does not grant the government any powers. It only says what they cannot do.
There is more to the Constitution than the Bill of Rights. If the United States Constitution didn’t apply to the states, then the federal government would be a paper tiger.
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And because of this perverse decision an Amendment was legally added to reverse this decision.
It says it right here in Article 6. I’ve posted out numerous times for you.
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Last edited:
pjzwtl
.308 Win
I don’t know but common sense tells me the state has no constitutional authority infringing on rights protected by the BOR if not the case the BOR really would be meaningless. Seems like a silly argument
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Right. The Founding Fathers wouldn’t intend for someone to have the right to bail for only federal crimes but not for state crimes or the freedom of speech only in Washington DC but not in Virginia.
It’s ridiculous to think so and that Supreme Court case that @nortatoga posted above was utter nonsense. That’s why they fixed it by adding an undisputable amendment that corrected that ridiculous ruling once and for all.
Imagine this. The Federal Government issues the order to activate the Massachusetts, New York, and Rhode Island Militias onto federal service (Since there were no standing armies at the time) to repel invaders on our northeastern coast.
Oh Wait. The Bill of Rights don’t pertain to those states. The citizenry there can’t have guns.
Last edited:
Yes @Willjr75 I know what article 6 says. The BOR's are Amendments to the Constitution
amendment
noun
amend·ment | \ ə-ˈmen(d)-mənt \
Definition of amendment
1a: the process of altering or amending a law or document (such as a constitution) by parliamentary or constitutional procedurerights that were granted by amendment of the Constitution
b: an alteration proposed or effected by this processa constitutional amendment
2: the act of amending something : CORRECTION
3: a material (such as compost or sand) that aids plant growth indirectly by improving the condition of the soilsoil amendments
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
Although Madison's proposed amendments included a provision to extend the protection of some of the Bill of Rights to the states, the amendments that were finally submitted for ratification applied only to the federal government.
You go right ahead and keep arguing with history!
Please post links from source's of fact not your opinion.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Oh my God. Talking to you is like talking to a wall. Yes. You are correct. Article 6 doesn’t exist. The Founders intended for the Bill of Rights to only be applicable to Washington DC only and US Military bases.
The 10th Amendment came after Article 6 Will and took some of the bite out of it! That is why they are called Amendment's to the Constitution! Again show us some links that prove your opinion.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes. Like I said. They wanted the Bill of Rights to only apply to Washington DC. Nowhere else. Right? Do you really know what Amendment 10 says? Where does it say that it doesn’t apply to the states.
I remember going word for word with it in a previous post. You must have skipped that post or ignored it.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And why are you arguing this anyway? Do you want the Bill of Rights to not apply to the states?
Not at all Will!
But it does not change 200+ years of States Right's and Laws without Court challenge's! So before 2010 the 2A did not apply to the States! Prove me wrong!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I already did. Article 6. Amendment 10 not mentioning anything about the Bill of Rights or the Constitution not applying to them. The Bill of Rights not being the only thing in the Constitution. A complete breakdown of Amendment 10. The total ridiculousness of the Bill of Rights only applying to D.C. What more do you want?
Why do you care anyway? You say that you don’t want state infringements but for someone who doesn’t want them, you sure go out of your way to defend for them.
I mean look at your Signature. You want federal infringements too. Unless you supported them, I couldn’t fathom why anyone would use the Heller case as their signature. Unless of course you were against concealed carry as a natural right.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
McDonald incorporates Heller to the 50 states in addition to DC. That's it. Before McDonald the Heller decision was binding on DC and DC alone.
With that said- its huge.
@Willjr75 to an extent I very much owe you an apology and would like to very publicly make one, though I still question your "trojan horse" mentality vis a vis Scalia.
I re-read Heller as well as (all 8 pages of) Miller. I am not sure why Miller is even discussed in Heller other than it being one of the few (maybe) on point SCOTUS cases that would apply. Granted I did not read the Heller briefs or the transcripts but I did read Nelson Lund's excellent essay on this issue (link forthcoming when i get back to a computer).
I think I've been a bit lazy on Miller vice Heller for a long time but I never threw them up side by side until we had this argument though always thought there was a weird tension there.
Heller - frankly - mis-states Miller. They are incompatible with each other.
Will, though, where you see corruption and fifth column, I see Scalia knowing he was about to issue an opinion of Roe scale and wanting to protect the incremental win- particularly knowing the make up of the Court at the time, and that Heller (at that moment) would only apply to DC.
Appreciate you all making me dig in and think.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
And that is my definition of corruption. Let’s insert a phrase here (Trojan Horse) that will make the decision easier to swallow.
No apologies needed BD. You and I are good. This is a forum. I do not take things personal. I have learned a lot from these forums. Even @Darth once destroyed my arguments about the 2A applying to private businesses. I had to research his points and he was right. At the time all I knew about the constitution was from hearsay.
@BDinPutnam I do believe the reason Miller was brought up was in response to Justice Stevens Dissenting Opinion? It was what he opened with.
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question.
The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.
In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, "n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller--that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons--is both the most natural reading of the Amendment's text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Those damned founding fathers opening their mouths again.
1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"Here every private person is authorized to arm himself, and on the strength of this authority, I do not deny the inhabitants had a right to arm themselves at that time, for their defense, not for offence."
-John Adams 1772
Again where is your proof the BOR's applied to the States before the Amendments were incorporated through the 14th Amendment!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
You keep repeating the same shit over and over. It’s been explained to you multiple times. We are done here.
That's right I will bow down to your opinion over fact!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I knew that was coming. That’s what you do. You don’t dispute points and just type empty words. When it’s explained to you, you ignore it and go back full circle and say the same thing again. I’ve explained article 6 to you and the 10th amendment numerous times already. All you do is ignore it and keep repeating the same crap over and over. Why should I repeat it again to you? Why should I repeat to you the idiocy of the bill of rights only applying in Washington DC?
We get it. You are for the states infringing on the bill of rights. Why else would you obsessively keep bringing it up when it’s a moot point already whether you are right or wrong?
@thewheels
.308 Win
That decision completely ignored Article 6 so the 14th was ratified to keep SCOTUS in line. Except, SCOTUS still mindfully managed to screw the pooch by conjuring up the concept that somehow, anyhow the 14th allowed for selective incorporation.
SCOTUS gave the 14th the bird with the selective incorporation concept and they fucking knew it.
And every court since has continued that garbage.