The 2A, the Framer's intent and SCOTUS rulings discussion.

[@thewheels]

No, you are mistaken. The 1st says “congress shall make no law”. It only applies to the federal government. Remember the article six was written before the admendments. The 4th Admendment against search and seizure didn’t apply to the states until Mapp v Ohio in 1961.

The founding fathers were alive and operating the government. Why was Mapp the first case to rule so in all those years after they past on?

Article six meaning at the time was to say treaties and the expressed powers of the federal government were the law of the land to overcome the problems of the articles of confederation.

Also the 10 admendment was passed in part to counteract the article six

Because selective incorporation? Which scrotus had/has no constitutional authority to apply.
I'm not sure what time period you're referring to for the founding fathers. The last of the FF died in 1836.
John Bingham framed the 14th and intended for the 1st eight amendments to be automatically applied to the states with the ratification of the 14th.

Many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, 'cruel and unusual punishments' have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.

It was an opprobrium to the Republic that for fidelity to the United States they could not by national law be protected against the degrading punishment inflicted on slaves and felons by State law. That great want of the citizen and stranger, protection by national law from unconstitutional State enactments, is supplied by the first section of this amendment. -John Bingham

So much for states rights. The states agreed to and ratified the 14th and Scrotus decided that they were going to do it their way. Scrotus spit in the face of the states and took it upon themselves to determine when and if the BOR would/should be incorporated.

 

[Robin]

For 'intent' you have to go beyond the Constitution and into the founders personal and public lives, what they are quoted as saying and what they personally wrote. It is abundantly clear they meant that every able bodied man should own a firearm if they chose to do so, and not for hunting purposes.
Robin

 

[fresch]

State Right to Bear Arms in New York | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Laws with no backbone.

 

[nortatoga]

@nortatoga . Question for you. Please answer it. Ive provided Article 6 for you and for some reason, you don’t want to seem to acknowledge it. Lets get past that for a minute and assume I’m dead wrong.

We all know that it has since been corrected and now it’s indisputable that the Bill of Rights applies to the state governments as well. Indisputable.

So the question. Why do you become a man on a mission when it comes to question if it didn’t previously?

@Willjr75 this starts with you bashing the Heller ruling and Justice Scalia every chance you can. You're like Joy Behar on the View (No I don't watch it) everything is Trumps fault! And you are so wrong on your opinion of that ruling, All over it is called a Landmark 2A ruling and yet you thing you are smarter the everyone else ( Lawyers, Constitutional Historians, Pro-gun Groups and such!) You tell me to use google, it should be quite obvious that I do, As a matter of fact I just google "Was the Heller v DC ruling Anti-Gun" Guess what came up Landmark 2A Ruling! not one article to agree with you!

Now you get all pissed about me putting section 2 of the ruling in my signature. The reason for that started with what is underlined in red, For all those that bitch about NYS pistol permitting process (Restrictions) Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897)

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

This is a SCOTUS ruling/opinion. And yet people get mad that the SCOTUS won't take up a CCW case! It has already been ruled on, unless 4 justices feel they would want to over turn this ruling (how often does that happen) needing 5 to actually overturn!

So the ruling state's " laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; " Do not infringe! So if states want you to have license to CCW there is no constitutional protection that says they can't. NYS is infringing by not allowing Open Carry! Which I believe is a case that could be won as 45 State allow (or should say respect the 2A)

Now lets move on to you're Trojan Horse ( It's more like a Unicorn) In my signature you say that Scalia reaffirms the NFA he did nothing of the sort! In mentioning all of those laws was to look to weather Heller's case fell under any of them, it did not! If Scalia was a proponent of the NFA why would he put this in the opinion?

" We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

You should reread all of what is said about the Miller case!

Scalia was a very smart man and no Justice tips their hand on how they will rule on a case that may come before them! If you watch any of the interviews he had given he was asked direct questions and his answers were all very coy. Just as potential Justice's in conformation hears!

Also 4 other Justice agreed with this ruling and opinion! We lost nothing and gain the Individual right to bear arms!

A Dick Heller won- In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

 

[nortatoga]

So the states weren't bound by the BOR.
Regardless of their own constitutions and what they may have included or excluded in them, they were free to mandate a state religion. Or remove all arms. Or ban particular speech from being printed.
Is that the gist of the argument?

The 13 Colonies/States all had there own Constitutions years before the US Constitution was written and ratified so yes! But all those thing you mention were not in those pre-existing Constitutions. And these State Constitution were used as a model for the Federal Constitution! Hence the reason for the BOR's the States already had protections on free speech 1A says the Fed's can't over-ruled it!, States already had protections for bearing arms (militia) 2A says the Fed's can't over-rule it and so on.

 

[@thewheels]

The 13 Colonies/States all had there own Constitutions years before the US Constitution was written and ratified so yes! But all those thing you mention were not in those pre-existing Constitutions. And these State Constitution were used as a model for the Federal Constitution! Hence the reason for the BOR's the States already had protections on free speech 1A says the Fed's can't over-ruled it!, States already had protections for bearing arms (militia) 2A says the Fed's can't over-rule it and so on.

Ok, so the states were free to do as they pleased based on this comment.
I find it odd and difficult to believe that the FF's that wanted to protect the people from the abuses of a federal government didn't have the foresight to ensure that state/local governments couldn't do the same.
Federal abuse=Bad
State abuse=SOL

 

[nortatoga]

Ok, so the states were free to do as they pleased based on this comment.
I find it odd and difficult to believe that the FF's that wanted to protect the people from the abuses of a federal government didn't have the foresight to ensure that state/local governments couldn't do the same.
Federal abuse=Bad
State abuse=SOL

Again 13 individual Countries/State's joining a Union not wanting to give up their own sovereignty to an all powerful Federal Government, they just kick one of those out. Look at things today laws get passed on the Federal level that some States rep's did not vote for as the State residents are against.

 

[Truebeliever]

Because selective incorporation? Which scrotus had/has no constitutional authority to apply.
I'm not sure what time period you're referring to for the founding fathers. The last of the FF died in 1836.
John Bingham framed the 14th and intended for the 1st eight amendments to be automatically applied to the states with the ratification of the 14th.

Many instances of State injustice and oppression have already occurred in the State legislation of this Union, of flagrant violations of the guarantied privileges of citizens of the United States, for which the national Government furnished and could furnish by law no remedy whatever. Contrary to the express letter of your Constitution, 'cruel and unusual punishments' have been inflicted under State laws within this Union upon citizens, not only for crimes committed, but for sacred duty done, for which and against which the Government of the United States had provided no remedy and could provide none.

It was an opprobrium to the Republic that for fidelity to the United States they could not by national law be protected against the degrading punishment inflicted on slaves and felons by State law. That great want of the citizen and stranger, protection by national law from unconstitutional State enactments, is supplied by the first section of this amendment. -John Bingham

So much for states rights. The states agreed to and ratified the 14th and Scrotus decided that they were going to do it their way. Scrotus spit in the face of the states and took it upon themselves to determine when and if the BOR would/should be incorporated.

The original debate was about the amendments being originally only applying to the federal government. I agree that the 14th is what makes it apply to the states.

But it’s not always immediately recognized. Again, the 4th applying to the state against search and seizure did not apply to the states until 1961.

Why?

In part because the “enforcement “ or penalty didn’t apply. The exclusionary rule ( weeks vs United States) was not applicable to the states .

Heller did not apply to the states until McDonald.

Please understand that limits on the states by the bill of rights has to be incorporated by the 14th and has to be recognized. Court cases in a federal case are not automatically applied to the states.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

My only way to see it.....

View attachment 50648

True.

And when the lefties say the framers never meant for us to have the guns today, remind them...

And we don't need the internet, social media, mass published books, magazines, telephones, megaphones, movies etc to be protected under the 1a, well, because ya know that's not what the framers intended or predicted.



Back in the colonial era private citizens had cannons and frigging warships. Our navy was essentially a naval militia full of "privateers".

Private citizens have ALWAYS been taken into account of being able to own military grade weapons regardless of how the modern day socialists, courts and media want to twist the argument.

 

[@thewheels]

The original debate was about the amendments being originally only applying to the federal government. I agree that the 14th is what makes it apply to the states.

But it’s not always immediately recognized. Again, the 4th applying to the state against search and seizure did not apply to the states until 1961.

Why?

In part because the “enforcement “ or penalty didn’t apply. The exclusionary rule ( weeks vs United States) was not applicable to the states .

Heller did not apply to the states until McDonald.

Please understand that limits on the states by the bill of rights has to be incorporated by the 14th and has to be recognized. Court cases in a federal case are not automatically applied to the states.

I think we're on different pages here.

What are you referring to with this? "In part because the “enforcement “ or penalty didn’t apply."

 

[Truebeliever]

I think we're on different pages here.

What are you referring to with this? "In part because the “enforcement “ or penalty didn’t apply."

What happens if the government violates the 4th or 5th in the criminal case?

It is excluded as evidence ie the evidence is “thrown out”.

Go read weeks vs US (1914). Or Wolf v Colorado ( 1949)

The standard was not put upon the states until Mapp ( 1961)

 

[Marine Cpl]

@Willjr75 this starts with you bashing the Heller ruling and Justice Scalia every chance you can. You're like Joy Behar on the View (No I don't watch it) everything is Trumps fault! And you are so wrong on your opinion of that ruling, All over it is called a Landmark 2A ruling and yet you thing you are smarter the everyone else ( Lawyers, Constitutional Historians, Pro-gun Groups and such!) You tell me to use google, it should be quite obvious that I do, As a matter of fact I just google "Was the Heller v DC ruling Anti-Gun" Guess what came up Landmark 2A Ruling! not one article to agree with you!

Now you get all pissed about me putting section 2 of the ruling in my signature. The reason for that started with what is underlined in red, For all those that bitch about NYS pistol permitting process (Restrictions) Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281 (1897)

Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (article 1) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (article 2) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;

This is a SCOTUS ruling/opinion. And yet people get mad that the SCOTUS won't take up a CCW case! It has already been ruled on, unless 4 justices feel they would want to over turn this ruling (how often does that happen) needing 5 to actually overturn!

So the ruling state's " laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; " Do not infringe! So if states want you to have license to CCW there is no constitutional protection that says they can't. NYS is infringing by not allowing Open Carry! Which I believe is a case that could be won as 45 State allow (or should say respect the 2A)

Now lets move on to you're Trojan Horse ( It's more like a Unicorn) In my signature you say that Scalia reaffirms the NFA he did nothing of the sort! In mentioning all of those laws was to look to weather Heller's case fell under any of them, it did not! If Scalia was a proponent of the NFA why would he put this in the opinion?

" We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

You should reread all of what is said about the Miller case!

Scalia was a very smart man and no Justice tips their hand on how they will rule on a case that may come before them! If you watch any of the interviews he had given he was asked direct questions and his answers were all very coy. Just as potential Justice's in conformation hears!

Also 4 other Justice agreed with this ruling and opinion! We lost nothing and gain the Individual right to bear arms!

A Dick Heller won- In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

So you really didn’t answer the question. Instead you say that I bashed Heller. So is it personal then? Then you say that the militia had common arms which just so happened to be exactly what the military had. Then you quote a decision that happened well after the founders died. Let me word this differently. Do you want the states to have the ability to infringe on certain gun rights which limits the citizenry to not have certain guns or carry a certain way for their own protection?

Because the way I see it, it seems that you might the way you go carrying on.

 

[@thewheels]

What happens if the government violates the 4th or 5th in the criminal case?

It is excluded as evidence ie the evidence is “thrown out”.

Go read weeks vs US (1914). Or Wolf v Colorado ( 1949)

The standard was not put upon the states until Mapp ( 1961)

Ok, so you're arguing that the 4th wasn't incorporated until 1961. This would be due to scrotus and their selective incorporation doctrine which is bullshit.
The 4th (and the other 1st 7 amendments in the BOR) was automatically incorporated to the states when the 14th amendment was ratified.
The intent and wording of the 14th was crystal clear and the courts have thumbed their noses at it since.

 

[dsdmmat]

Again 13 individual Countries/State's joining a Union not wanting to give up their own sovereignty to an all powerful Federal Government, they just kick one of those out. Look at things today laws get passed on the Federal level that some States rep's did not vote for as the State residents are against.

You have to look to the predecessor of the constitution to see why a strong federal government was desired but only one that guarantees the states and individual rights will not be abused. Had the country continued under the “articles of confederation” there was enough bickering between the states the country would not have lasted much longer.

 

[BDinPutnam]

@nortatoga you should go read the Miller decision itself, then re-read Heller, and have the face twisting experience of realizing that Heller *materially mis-states what the Miller decision said.*

 

[Marine Cpl]

@nortatoga .I guess you won’t really answer that question either.

 

[Truebeliever]

Ok, so you're arguing that the 4th wasn't incorporated until 1961. This would be due to scrotus and their selective incorporation doctrine which is bullshit.
The 4th (and the other 1st 7 amendments in the BOR) was automatically incorporated to the states when the 14th amendment was ratified.
The intent and wording of the 14th was crystal clear and the courts have thumbed their noses at it since.

Go read the text. It’s not clear as one makes it out to be.

“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.”

Remember that at the time it was written until 1961, the bill of rights was only seen as a articulation of the rights against the federal government. So it was equal protection for all from the federal government. And equal protection for all under state government rules.

And it gave congress the power to make laws to enforce this equal protection on the states. It was about equal protection.

So the racist southern states made “grandfather clauses” saying if your grandfather couldn’t vote, you can’t. Equal but unequal rights under the law.

So the 15th admendment was passed to correct this.

The 14th originally wasn’t for the bill of rights to apply to the states but rather for Black Americans to have the same rights as everyone else under the law.

Hence that separate but equal BS .

Congress had the power to stop that if that wasn’t its intent at the time.

 

[@thewheels]

Go read the text. It’s not clear as one makes it out to be.

“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.”

Remember that at the time it was written until 1961, the bill of rights was only seen as a articulation of the rights against the federal government. So it was equal protection for all from the federal government. And equal protection for all under state government rules.

And it gave congress the power to make laws to enforce this equal protection on the states. It was about equal protection.

So the racist southern states made “grandfather clauses” saying if your grandfather couldn’t vote, you can’t. Equal but unequal rights under the law.

So the 15th admendment was passed to correct this.

The 14th originally wasn’t for the bill of rights to apply to the states but rather for Black Americans to have the same rights as everyone else under the law.

Hence that separate but equal BS .

Congress had the power to stop that if that wasn’t its intent at the time.

So they knowingly ratified a useless amendment?

This is quite long but it shows some interesting analysis of the 14th and of John Bingham's intent.

https://www.constitution.org/lrev/aynes_14th.htm

 

[Truebeliever]

So they knowingly ratified a useless amendment?

This is quite long but it shows some interesting analysis of the 14th and of John Bingham's intent.

https://www.constitution.org/lrev/aynes_14th.htm

Did you read the first part of your link. The congress who voted for it did not believe the 14th applied the bill of rights to the states.

It says that to believe so it would have dismissed the believes of one the authors. Correct?

It’s what the intent of the people voting on it that matters. Not just one person. Even one of the authors.

Just the fact that it was not recognized until 1961 by numerous SCOTUS courts and Congress after Congress did not pass laws to enforce such incorporation .

 

[@thewheels]

Did you read the first part of your link. The congress who voted for it did not believe the 14th applied the bill of rights to the states.

It says that to believe so it would have dismissed the believes of one the authors. Correct?

It’s what the intent of the people voting on it that matters. Not just one person. Even one of the authors.

Just the fact that it was not recognized until 1961 by numerous SCOTUS courts and Congress after Congress did not pass laws to enforce such incorporation .

You didn't read the whole thing if that's your conclusion.

 

[Truebeliever]

You didn't read the whole thing if that's your conclusion.

Dude, it is an opinion paper. I’m explaining how it was interpreted until 1961 by the court and most scholars at the time.

Interpretation of a law or Admendment isn’t just based on what the author thought when he wrote it but also what the people who voted on it believed it to mean. That’s why its not always as clear cut as some believe. And the courts interpret its meaning

 

[@thewheels]

Dude, it is an opinion paper. I’m explaining how it was interpreted until 1961 by the court and most scholars at the time.

Interpretation of a law or Admendment isn’t just based on what the author thought when he wrote it but also what the people who voted on it believed it to mean. That’s why its not always as clear cut as some believe. And the courts interpret its meaning

Bingham didn't go this alone and he and many of his contemporaries agreed on the purpose and intent of the 14th.
The article has multiple quotes from judges and politicians of the time that speak to that.

I understand the history of how it's been interpreted and I'm saying it was wrong.
The courts knowingly stripped the 14th of its intent and in doing so allowed numerous state abuses to continue for decades.
The 15th amendment wouldn't have been necessary if the courts hadn't stripped the 14th.
And forget Congress. Congress has never had interest in fixing unpopular issues.

 

[Truebeliever]

Bingham didn't go this alone and he and many of his contemporaries agreed on the purpose and intent of the 14th.
The article has multiple quotes from judges and politicians of the time that speak to that.

I understand the history of how it's been interpreted and I'm saying it was wrong.
The courts knowingly stripped the 14th of its intent and in doing so allowed numerous state abuses to continue for decades.
The 15th amendment wouldn't have been necessary if the courts hadn't stripped the 14th.
And forget Congress. Congress has never had interest in fixing unpopular issues.

That is possible. But it is also possible that people believed different things when it was passed .

Go see Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln and how it was passed in the movie. It was not far from the truth. People were promised different things.

Now look up the exclusionary rule and when it came into power. And how long it applies to federal cases and when it was applied to state cases.