Court Of Appeals Says Drop Dead Second Amendment


Piece Corps

New member
Well, there you go! The Constitution has now been deemed worthless in the individual states. If the 2nd Amendment is no good, then neither is the rest of the Bill of Rights. You read it here, folks.

And for those of you who said that this couldn't happen in the United States of America - SURPRISE!
 

DocBoCook

Not Negotiable, A Right
if that's the case, neither is the declaration of independence or the constitution. I now declare this a lawless country, Anarchy will now reign. Congrats Dems. You finally got rid of Democracy.
 

.45_4me

New member
if that's the case, neither is the declaration of independence or the constitution. I now declare this a lawless country, Anarchy will now reign. Congrats Dems. You finally got rid of Democracy.

Yup it appears to be so! What a shame/sham...Treason is the only thing that comes to mind! They should :hang3: for this!
 

sqlbullet

New member
I imagine I may be the lone dissenter here, but this is a good thing.

We don't WANT more federal involvement in our lives. This is a correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It NEVER has been incorporated. (None of the bill of rights were until well after the Civil War and the 14th Amendment.)

This this kind of interpretation leads the way to the overturning of other Federal gun laws like the '68 GCA and the '34 NFA. It continues the precedent that the regulation of firearms is reserved to the States. If such regulation could be ruled exclusively the domain of the States, any Federal regulation would violates the Second.

On the other hand, if the court rules for incorporation of the 2nd as a part of the 14th Amendment guarantees, then we are open to far more widespread and restrictive Federal regulation, with little hope of a judicial remedy.

And, the United States of America was never a democracy (thank heaven). It is a democratic republic. In a democracy, the voice of the majority rules, with no respect of regard to the rights of the minority.

As far as treason, the treason that has occured is the courts not having previously struck down the aforementioned statutes as well as any other Federal regulations on firearms. Leave it to the states. Most have a RKBA guarantee. If your state doesn't, get busy (campaigning for one or moving to a place that protects your rights.)
 
Last edited:
I imagine I may be the lone dissenter here, but this is a good thing.

We don't WANT more federal involvement in our lives. This is a correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. It NEVER has been incorporated. (None of the bill of rights were until well after the Civil War and the 14th Amendment.)

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.
 

mbass

New member
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.
 

crazycathed

New member
what's keeping the states from banning legal representation for those who can't afford it so as to keep the "bad guys " in jail? it makes as much sense as what they're doing now:sarcastic:
 
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.
 

sqlbullet

New member
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
 
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.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,136
Messages
621,673
Members
74,107
Latest member
Clydesdad
Top