Court Of Appeals Says Drop Dead Second Amendment - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 13 of 13

Thread: Court Of Appeals Says Drop Dead Second Amendment

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by mbass View Post
    So let me understand: all of you, save one dissenter, WANT more Federal Government input? I am confused by this thought process. So, big brother is bad when it supports something that we do not want. And it is good when it supports something that we do want. I thought the whole idea of "Big Brother" was a bad idea all the way around?
    Self-contradiction, by definition, is irrational.
    Not more government intervention but just to have the states follow the Constitution as they agreed to. As I stated earlier the states right is to add to the laws not detract from them. We must all remember the Constitution is the basic law of the entire country, this means states as well as federal government. Banning firearms is a direct attact on this law.

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by ronwill View Post
    I must say that I do disagree here. The Constitution and Bill Of Rights had to be ratified and accepted by all the states in place at the time. New states had to accept it as the basic law of the land. States rights allow additions to these protections, not to over ride them. Banning firearms is a blatant disregard for the 2A. Once again all states had to either ratify this amendment or accept it as basic law.
    The states did not accept the bill of rights as laws that applied to them. They were rules that limited the Federal government. You can disagree all you want. However, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the bill of rights guarantees applied only to the Federal government (See Barron V Baltimore 1833).

    It wasn't until the 1890's that the courts began to utilize the 14th Amendment to incorporate other Bill of Rights guarantees as protections for citizens from state governments. The 14th Amendment that gave the Federal courts this ability wasn't ratified until 1868.

    In fact, in many ways, this was one of the true core disputes the caused the Civil War; states rights. Could the Federal Government impose it's will on the states. This was a much debated point. Slavery was one of the pivot issues that many wanted to Federal government to impose regulation about. In the end, even after the war was won, it took constitutional amendment before the Federal government could begin regulating in this way.

    Most regulations relating to due process have been incorporated, giving us a very standard methodolgy for criminal investigation and evidence acquisition. Others, like the 2nd never have been. For a comprehensive list and explanation please see Incorporation (Bill of Rights) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  4. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by sqlbullet View Post
    The states did not accept the bill of rights as laws that applied to them. They were rules that limited the Federal government. You can disagree all you want. However, the Supreme Court explicitly held that the bill of rights guarantees applied only to the Federal government (See Barron V Baltimore 1833).
    I really don't think we disagree, just look at it from different directions. If a state made a law saying you could not speak in public what do you think would be used to sue that state with? The same would go for a state making it legal for it's national guard or police to enter your house any time they deemed necessary. The Constitution is the foundation of law for the entire country and should be looked upon that way by all states.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast