The 2nd Amendment is not the problem

[Dawg]

Exactly. Can’t have it both ways.

Statists point to the 14th to reference the death of states rights. Yet they embrace states rights when the state tries to usurp the nation wide 2nd Amendment.

Now that Deerfield, Ill has banned AR's+, residents must be confused if it's town/state/fed law they must obey.......especially those with family in Deerfield that visit from instate or out of state.........is it 'don't take your gun to town' SON?

 

[Capitalist]

Now that Deerfield, Ill has banned AR's+, residents must be confused if it's town/state/fed law they must obey.......especially those with family in Deerfield that visit from instate or out of state.........is it 'don't take your gun to town' SON?

This is exactly the kind of thing Sessions should bring to court. Followed by CA and IL too. Gorsuch would tip the scale in the right direction. Seriously, what are we waiting for? Ginsberg to retire?

 

[Dawg]

This is exactly the kind of thing Sessions should bring to court. Followed by CA and IL too. Gorsuch would tip the scale in the right direction. Seriously, what are we waiting for? Ginsberg to retire?

she'd be asleep

 

[EatTheRich]

Whether intentional or not, the 14th Amendment has long been interpreted to extend the Bill of Rights to apply to the individual states, and IMO that was a huge mistake. Mostly because I'm a staunch strict constructionist and Jeffersonian advocate for state's rights. The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to limit the powers of the federal government when it comes to infringing on both individual liberty AND the rights of the states to govern themselves. It was never intended to apply to state governments in any way. Applied as intended, and without the undue obfuscation caused by the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment says that any and all federal laws restricting the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, however the individual states are free to restrict the right to bear arms within their borders as they see fit and in accordance with their own constitutions.

1. Due process incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment is one of the most important advances for democracy in world history.
2. The "intent of the Bill of Rights" aside, the 2nd Amendment doesn't, like the 1st Amendment, single out Congress or otherwise refer to the federal government in any way. It simply establishes a right of the people that shall not be infringed, without qualification as to who is doing the infringing. On a truly "strict constructionist" reading this applies to the states and their dependent sovereignties whether the 14th is there or not.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

This is exactly the kind of thing Sessions should bring to court. Followed by CA and IL too. Gorsuch would tip the scale in the right direction. Seriously, what are we waiting for? Ginsberg to retire?

Sessions is an idiot don't expect him to jump on this like the obama administration would jump on a civil rights violation
obama was selective on what civil rights he wanted to protect Session is clueless.

 

[guvnah]

I believe in states rights too. And it’s not dead. I also believe the federal government should block states from infringing on individuals’ rights called out in the BoR.

IMO you can't have it both ways.

 

[guvnah]

Recognizing that this is merely an academic debate at this point, IMO...

If the people of Utah decided to establish Mormanism as the state religion, go for it...

If the people of Texas decided to outlaw abortion, have at it...

If the people of Colorado decided to legalize meth and heroin, that's their prerogative...

If the people of Connecticut decided to ban all non LEO/Military gun ownership/possession, knock yourself out...

If the people of Florida decided they wanted state control over their press, most tards there can't read anyway...

In short, I have faith in the people at the state level to do what is right for them and do not believe in the need for "one size fits all" nanny federal government interference on such matters. The federal government should be there to provide national defense and that's about it.

 

[Dawg]

1. Due process incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment is one of the most important advances for democracy in world history.
2. The "intent of the Bill of Rights" aside, the 2nd Amendment doesn't, like the 1st Amendment, single out Congress or otherwise refer to the federal government in any way. It simply establishes a right of the people that shall not be infringed, without qualification as to who is doing the infringing. On a truly "strict constructionist" reading this applies to the states and their dependent sovereignties whether the 14th is there or not.

only the government could infringe on 'we the people'

 

[Arkady]

The problem is the 14th Amendment.

Along with all of the good things established by the 14th Amendment, came one glaringly awful consequence. Whether intentional or not, the 14th Amendment has long been interpreted to extend the Bill of Rights to apply to the individual states, and IMO that was a huge mistake. Mostly because I'm a staunch strict constructionist and Jeffersonian advocate for state's rights. The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to limit the powers of the federal government when it comes to infringing on both individual liberty AND the rights of the states to govern themselves. It was never intended to apply to state governments in any way. Applied as intended, and without the undue obfuscation caused by the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment says that any and all federal laws restricting the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, however the individual states are free to restrict the right to bear arms within their borders as they see fit and in accordance with their own constitutions.

As it should be.

To be clear, the 14th amendment didn't, on its own, extend the bill of rights to the states. It took a series of Supreme Court rulings to do that, one by one, for the various rights. The Second Amendment, for nearly the whole history of the 14th amendment, was held not to apply to the states. Then the Supreme Court's conservatives, in 2010, essentially legislated from the bench, inventing a new idea that the 14th amendment was meant to apply the 2nd to the states, and now that's the law.

Still, the second amendment needn't be an obstacle to common sense gun control. There are a whole series of gun control measures that are second-amendment-compliant and yet aren't currently in place at the national level: an assault weapons ban, universal background checks, universal registration, waiting periods, tighter licensing requirements, laws about locking up guns when not in use, etc.

 

[Arkady]

1. Due process incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the 14th Amendment is one of the most important advances for democracy in world history.
2. The "intent of the Bill of Rights" aside, the 2nd Amendment doesn't, like the 1st Amendment, single out Congress or otherwise refer to the federal government in any way. It simply establishes a right of the people that shall not be infringed, without qualification as to who is doing the infringing. On a truly "strict constructionist" reading this applies to the states and their dependent sovereignties whether the 14th is there or not.

I can see that argument, but as an historical fact, courts applied the first amendment to the states long before they did the second. That didn't happen until 2010. Ironically, this put the anti-gun-control people in an odd position. Previously, they could allow various forms of gun control to exist at the local level without it undermining their argument that it would be unconstitutional to do it at the national level. For example, saying that Boston can have tight gun licensing requirements without that meaning that similarly tight gun licensing requirements at the federal level would be Constitutional. But, once they incorporated the 2nd by way of the 14th, they lost the ability to make that distinction. Now they need to argue that all the gun control measures they want to treat as unconstitutional at the federal level are also void in all the states and localities. And that makes it hard to make peace with the pro-gun-control majority. If you tell a pro-gun-control person that he can't have a measure at the federal level but he and like-minded people can protect themselves in that way at the state or local level, he's going to be easier to make complacent on the issue than if you tell him there's no way he can have it at any level.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The 2nd Amendment must restrict state legislatures and prevent all law makers from restricting gun rights to individuals or it is meaningless.

Same with the 1st A and the rest of the B of R.

Too Much Faith in Self-Serving Hypocritical Organizations

The NRA is a collection agency for the Republican Party and doesn't really care about gun rights. The more those rights are threatened, the bigger the take to fund Tax Cuts for the Rich. We need an organization that will persuade those who don't own guns that the gun owners are the best line of defense they have to protect them from criminal beasts. But why should the NRA care about those who won't become members?

Another proof of the NRA's deception is that they wouldn't fund George Zimmerman's defense. They should be the ACLU for all gunowners caught protecting themselves.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

This is exactly the kind of thing Sessions should bring to court. Followed by CA and IL too. Gorsuch would tip the scale in the right direction. Seriously, what are we waiting for? Ginsberg to retire?

Jeffy Is Not Jiffy

Sissy Sessions stinks of the swamp, with climbing vines and impenetrable vegetation all over his desk. We need an AG as ruthless as Bobby Kennedy to undo all the damage the Kennedys started on its way.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

she'd be asleep

Norman Bates's Mother

The undead never retire. And if they try to re-bury her, Buzzi will hit them with her purse.

 

[connieb]

The problem is the 14th Amendment.

Along with all of the good things established by the 14th Amendment, came one glaringly awful consequence. Whether intentional or not, the 14th Amendment has long been interpreted to extend the Bill of Rights to apply to the individual states, and IMO that was a huge mistake. Mostly because I'm a staunch strict constructionist and Jeffersonian advocate for state's rights. The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to limit the powers of the federal government when it comes to infringing on both individual liberty AND the rights of the states to govern themselves. It was never intended to apply to state governments in any way. Applied as intended, and without the undue obfuscation caused by the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment says that any and all federal laws restricting the right to bear arms is unconstitutional, however the individual states are free to restrict the right to bear arms within their borders as they see fit and in accordance with their own constitutions.

As it should be.

I disagree because then you are allowing the states to infringe on a right.

 

[guvnah]

I disagree because then you are allowing the states to infringe on a right.

No I’m not. My state has its own bill of rights. And most others as well.

I’m merely saying that the federal government shouldn’t have the authority to dictate such matters to the individual states.

That’s what it means to believe in states rights.

PS: When this country was founded, the term “state” meant what the word “nation” means today.