Replies

From what I understand, 'equal protection' does not apply to state's that already have gun-control laws. (Doctrine of Non-Incorporation).

That is why I suggested incorporating 2A after the manner Roe vs Wade did in over-riding the doctrine.

Somebody help me out here if I'm wrong about that.

None of the those gun control laws existed prior to those States joining the Union. Part of being IN the Union is respecting the powers of the centralized authority. This wasn't as bad as it sounds now because at the time the majority of the State legislatures signed onton the US Constitution, the FedGov was tiny and extremely limited in scope.

Now of course, everything is a power grab free-for-all because "We the People" are squeemish about applying Rule .308.

From what I understand, 'equal protection' does not apply to state's that already have gun-control laws. (Doctrine of Non-Incorporation). That is why I suggested incorporating 2A after the manner Roe vs Wade did in over-riding the doctrine.

I don't understand your point. Roe V Wade (abortion) was decided on the "penumbral" right of privacy, not equal protection. Do you perhaps mean Brown vs. Board? (School integration), which was an equal protection deal. In Brown there was no question of "incorporation" since applying equal protection is an integral part of the 14th. amendment. Most so called "incorporation" has been under the due process clause of the 14th, because an earlier Supreme Court bit the big one and ruled that "priveleges and immunities" meant only those things unique to national citizenship, such as the right to travel between states, or the right to travel the navigable waterways which are under federal jurisdiction. This in spite of the fact that the authors and sponsers of the 14th amendment stated on multiple occasions that what they meant by "priveleges and immunities of citizens of the United States" were those rights protected by the first 8 amendments to the Constitution.