Don't know. Sounds familiar though. Not that I care what a court says since they clearly cannot tell or pretend to not know the difference between amendments of the bill of rights written at the same time that have clear restrictions placed on them in comparison to the 2nd which has none.@Willjr75 Didn't SCOTUS just rule on a case about asset forfeiture can't remember the guys name of the case at the moment .. and they said yes the US constitution applies to the States too ..
Yes. They are facts that were based on court decisions which you always seem to take as gospel instead of taking gospel from the document itself or the words of the Founders themselves. Court decisions where judges applied their own words and conjecture to a document that didn't contain them.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. The door for their application upon state governments was opened in the 1860s, following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the early 20th century both federal and state courts have used the Fourteenth Amendment to apply portions of the Bill of Rights to state and local governments. The process is known as incorporation.[3]
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia
Incorporation, in United States law, is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, courts held that its protections only extended to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of state and local governments. However, the post-Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other Amendments, providing more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
In the 2010 landmark case McDonald v. Chicago, the Supreme Court declared the Second Amendment is incorporated through the Due Process Clause. However, Justice Thomas, the fifth justice in the majority, criticized substantive due process and declared instead that he reached the same incorporation only through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.[21] No other justice attempted to question his rationale. This is considered by some as a "revival" of the Privileges or Immunities Clause,[22] however as it is a concurring opinion and not the majority opinion in the case, it is not binding precedent in lower courts; it is merely an indication that SCOTUS may be inclined, given the proper question, to reconsider and ultimately reverse the Slaughterhouse Cases.
And I'm sure @Willjr75 you are still going to argue these facts!!
Article. VI.
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.
You can't get around this one when you defend your state's gun control laws.
Amendment X10th Amendment!
Amendment X
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.
That's in regards to things not in the Constitution.
Forget it dude. I'm tired of you defending gun control.
You aren't really serious are you? In case you are, read the Article 6 above. Try to understand what it says. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and all states and judges are bound by it. That means that states are supposed to follow the 2A.You just made my case!
Where does the Constitution say the Federal Government has power over bearing arms.
You aren't really serious are you? In case you are, read the Article 6 above. Try to understand what it says. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land and all states and judges are bound by it. Do that means that states are supposed to follow the 2A.
OMG. I'm done with this. You are incredible. The lengths you go to to justify gun control. You are either evil or a buffoon.
Hamilton sure didn't as evidenced from his quotes above.So in some people's minds the Dems can stack the States, as is being done right now, and force strict regulations on the 2nd and eventually only allow a single shot .22 and shotgun. Thereby bypassing the Fed. See how easy that is, Fed didn't violate the 2nd, yet States are allowed to run roughshod on the 2nd with no recourse when the Dems have control. I'm pretty sure the Founders didn't have that in mind.
So in some people's minds the Dems can stack the States, as is being done right now, and force strict regulations on the 2nd and eventually only allow a single shot .22 and shotgun. Thereby bypassing the Fed. See how easy that is, Fed didn't violate the 2nd, yet States are allowed to run roughshod on the 2nd with no recourse when the Dems have control. I'm pretty sure the Founders didn't have that in mind.
Haha. I respond because you defend gun control and you are wrong on so many levels.Will I started this thread, and your the one that took it in this direction! You don't like me sticking to facts that prove you wrong don't reply. You argue like a liberal Democrat all opinion and feelings facts be damned. Then you resort to name calling insults clam people mean things that they don't and never said!
Not since 2010 when the 2A was incorporated.
You're assuming that the method of incorporation that's been followed has been correct.
The current method of incorporation flies in the face of the 14th amendment.
The entire BOR was incorporated with the 14th, but the black robes insisted incorrectly on this selective bullshit that has occurred since its ratification.
Think about it logically. Since the 14th is the means for incorporation, how in the hell could any judge (or anyone else) interpret the 14th to find a selective avenue for incorporation for each amendment in the BOR?
They can't. It's not written in the 14th ANYWHERE. There's absolutely no intelligent justification for the judicial tyranny done by subverting the plain language of the 14th to find selective incorporation as correct/proper.
The fact that the precedent for selective incorporation was set way back when by some black robed bandits and still stupidly followed to this day does not make it right.
If anything it makes it worse - Generations of American citizens being dicked over by unconstitutional state laws because some judicial clowns won't grow a sack and put that selective incorporation trash in the dustbin of history.
This statement is plain and easy to understand even for asshole lawyers and judges that don't want it to say what it says:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Whether you agree with it or not! At least you understand it!
Anyone that understands it, can't agree with selective incorporation. It's a blatant corruption of the 14th. Nothing more.
How do you feel about Marbury v. Madison?
For better or for worse it established judicial review which is a bandaid for a serious problem.
Yes and the Court use Judicial Review on each Incorporation ruling did they not. The 14th didn't automatically Incorporate the BOR's it was used as a vehicle to Incorporate. (meaning it was not the original intention of the 14th)
Now lets just stay with the 2A before McDonald was there another case that came before the Court that would have fit the criteria for Incorporation?