Posted on 09/06/2015 7:50:57 AM PDT by impimp
You are too kind. :)
Now, I am not a lawyer, but it would seem to me that while the one applies to Congress, the language of the second more emphatically was intended to protect the right of all Americans to keep and bear arms and of the states to maintain militias.
I never bother to read all the comments before posting my own. Perhaps I should.
Reread the 10th Amendment. It does not supersede any other Amendment of the Federal Constitution. The problem we have is Judicial Activism on the Supreme Court that chooses what parts of the Constitution it wants to ignore to pass an agenda. The 10th Amendment has been eviscerated by the SCOTUS with their Gay Marriage Ruling. Can't wait for the Incestuous Marriage Rights and Polygamist Marriage Rights advocates to get their day in Court now that the States have no power regulating Marriage. Once the Dam breaks, everyone drowns.
The funny thing is that argument is mote. Every stat constitution I’ve seen has the same right defined and embedded, so it should have never come up even within the states.
Thomas Jeffersons letter to the Danbury Baptists was as a result of their concern about hearing how the federal government was planning on establishing a national Christian religion. TJ said that the 1st amendment prohibited the Feds from establishing a national religion, that it creates a separation of church and state at the federal level (but not at the individual state level, this wasn’t being addressed by TJ, and it was already accepted that at the individual state level they could and did have state sponsored Christian religions.)
No the 2nd amendment applies to all states. The Constitution actually is the law of the land. What part of “shall not infringe” is hard to understand?
“Because states rights are being eroded by the Supreme Court and this gun ruling helps to PAVE THE WAY FOR GAY MARRIAGE.”
The Constitution does not address marriage or gay marriage so that is a matter for the states to decide.
The 2nd amendment is the Constitution which is the law of the land for all 50 states.
“Once Roberts was compromised, I expected a continous series of anti-gun rulings.”
I think even the SCOTUS knows what CWII means. :-)
Dumb old me wants to know why or how can the Supreme Court issue decrees, since it is not in session. Or am I wrong that the Supreme Court new session starts on October 1 and its previous session ended on June 30?
The Second Amendment was held to apply to the States until about 1830, when the Supreme Court ruled that it did *not* apply to the States. That decision held until the 14th Amendment was passed about 1866, which was passed, in part, to insure that the Second Amendment *did* apply to the States.
Then we had the Slaughter house cases, where the Supreme Court said, *no it does not* 14th Amendment or not.
Then we finally had McDonald, where the Supreme Court said, *yes it does*, going back to the original interpretation pre-1830, kinda.
There are six states that do not have a state protection of the right to keep and bear arms. They are:
New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, Minnesota, and Iowa.
Do any sound familiar?
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/11/states-constitutions-without-explicit.html
Your correct of course, I should have confirmed. New Yorks has a defense of state clause vs an individuals rights
Article XIII- Text of Section 1:
Defense; militia
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
New Jersey and Maryland both state something about the common laws of england shall remain in effect.
California states citizen rights to include: ‘Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property.’ Yet they don’t seem to allow for much defending and protecting. Iowa has similar language.
Minnesota appears to be the weakest with language on forming a state militia, and preserving hunting and gaming.
I’ll take the tack that these are just a greater proof that while there are those among the founders who thought the bill of rights were not necessary and redundant for the US constitution - thankfully those with some idea of governmental overreach felt it was necessary to prevent the elimination of basic rights that would very well have otherwise occurred.
If you look at those six states, they are amoung the weakest in protecting Second Amendment rights.
MCDONALD ET AL. v. CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR No. 08–1521. Argued March 2, 2010—Decided June 28, 2010 ET AL. THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
True. I almost referenced the Declaration as unalienable rights and decided to stick with the Constitution where the founder recognized those in the Bill of Rights as guaranteed to the people. No one can infringe, whether federal or state as federal cannot be overridden by state or local law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.