Posted on 12/02/2003 12:59:42 PM PST by tpaine
Sure it is. And court decisions have backed that up.
It's not worded the same as the first, but neither are amendments three through eight -- and they are restricted to the federal government (or were, until the passage of the 14th amendment).
"Another important factor in the small arms-control debate is federalism. Like all the other Bill of Rights Amendments, the Second Amendment was originally added to the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government only. Both the 1876 decision of United States v. Cruikshank and the 1886 decision of Presser v. Illinois recognized this and explicitly stated the Second Amendment limits the power of the federal government only".
"The basic liberties of the Bill of Rights did not become applicable to the states until after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Through a tortuous, decades-long process, the Court eventually adopted the view that certain fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights could be incorporated through the due process clause and turned into limits against the power of the states also. In separate decisions, the right of free speech, the right to freely exercise one's religion, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on, were made applicable to the states by the Justices."
"The Second Amendment right to bear arms, however, has never been incorporated by the Court into the Fourteenth Amendment. The result is that today the Second Amendment, whatever it may mean, operates to restrict only the power of the federal government. The states remain unfettered by the Amendment's limitations. They remain essentially free to regulate arms and the right to bear them as they choose, in the absence of strictures in their own state constitutions and laws."
-- time.com
No it doesn't dumbass. It clearly states that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
State registration schemes and prohibitions are as un-Constitutional now as they were prior to 1934.
Get over it.
Now it's correct.
Really? And the 4th only prevents federal cops from barging into your home without a warrant? Local cops can wander into your bathroom unannounced, anytime they feel like it?
Maybe in your wettest jackboot dreams.
The 2nd bars infringement on the right of the people (any people really, even non-citizens) to keep (have) and bear (carry around) arms - whether from the feds, from the state, from the town, or from a bunch of your neighbors who have decided to gain up on you to take your guns.
When discussing reality one must also take into account vote fraud and Hillary. One must consider the avid desire of most of the world to see the USA destroyed.
Says who? You? That's all you got to go on is your emotion?
I give you not one but two USSC rulings and yet I'm the dumbass?
C'mon. Give me some proof that state registration schemes and prohibitions are unconstitutional. Some ruling somewhere. Some decision. Hell, I'll even take something from the Federalist papers or some quote from one of the Founding Fathers that says the second amendment applies to the states.
You called me the dumbass. Show me how smart you are by giving me some quote, some document, that says the second amendment applies to the states. Anything.
Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege."
Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878). "We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation."
Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
"The passage from Story shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights."
Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846). "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well- regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State."
Simpson v. State, 13 Tenn. 356, at 359-60 (1833).
"But suppose it to be assumed on any ground, that our ancestors adopted and brought over with them this English statute, [the statute of Northampton,] or portion of the common law, our constitution has completely abrogated it; it says, 'that the freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.' Article II, sec. 26. * * * By this clause of the constitution, an express power is given and secured to all the free citizens of the State to keep and bear arms for their defence, without any qualification whatever as to their kind or nature; and it is conceived, that it would be going much too far, to impair by construction or abridgement a constitutional privilege, which is so declared; neither, after so solemn an instrument hath said the people may carry arms, can we be permitted to impute to the acts thus licensed, such a necessarily consequent operation as terror to the people to be incurred thereby; we must attribute to the framers of it, the absence of such a view."
Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822).
"For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise."
"But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution."
It wasn't until the the 1930's that the Congress started ignoring the plain language of the Constitution.
Hmmmm. I read that the USSC made no comment.
Now how can they make no comment, yet comment that it isn't an individual right?
The USSC decided not to hear the case. That means only one thing -- they decided not to hear the case. Period.
Do you wish to change the subject and discuss it, or are you content just to rile things up a little with your senseless rhetoric?
Of course not, because it exposes the flaw in your understanding of those rights reserved specifically by the people and undermines your clayfooted arguments as it pertains to the BOR and the 2nd Amendment.
Do you wish to change the subject and discuss it, or are you content just to rile things up a little with your senseless rhetoric?
I'm content to let you continue to make an @ss of yourself.
By all means, carry on.
What I do see are some state cases that discuss a right to bear arms. So what? I can show you just as many state cases that say you don't.
As I stated before, each state constitution defines "second amendment" protections.
Agreed.
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.