I think your overinterpreting the "or prohibited by it to the States" segment of this sentence. There are many passages in the Constitution which specifically prohibit certain actions by the states (i.e. coining money, entering into treaties, etc...)
Yep, and our RKBA's is enumerated, specifically prohibited from being infringed.
Some Rino 'conservatives' on this forum WANT State to have prohibition powers over firearms, for instance. - Do you?
The people retained the power to keep and bear arms. IF, and only if, the people of one or more of the several states were to specifically grant the legislature of that state the power to restrict the bearing of arms, that would be proper for that state . To the best of my knowledge, that has not happened.
It has happened in California, with 'assault style' weapons.
The founders were aware that the needs and desires of the citizens of the states would vary from one state to the next, and specifically created a Federal framework in which the states retained a great deal of sovereignty over the day to day affairs of it's citizens. It is probably better though that, at least in some cases, our natural rights are deemed protected by the constitution against infringment Ba the states. Can you imagine the choas which would ensue if some of the states where allowed to restrict speach, or if there were no 4th or 5th Ammendment protections? I belive this is one area where the founders, when writing the constitution, simply could not foresee the moassive changes in society. 200 years ago it would have been unthinkable to live in Washington and to "commute" to New York. Thus, restrictions in the State of New York had little impact on the citizens of the State of Maryland or Virginia. Today, people travel a great deal in thier daily lives and any restrictions in one state would have a far greater impact on the lives of the citizens of another state - without the consent of those citizens. I don't have my copy handy, so correct me on this cite,
IIRC the 14th Ammendment was the one which subordinated the states concerning the rights protected under the constitution.
IF the states had already been restricted prior to this, the Ammendment [or that part of it which applies here] would have been unnecessary.
The States are bound to honor our Constitution as the supreme 'law of the land' in Art. VI.
-- Some states were violating individual rights using Marshall's 1833 'states rights' decision as their excuse. The 14th was passed to stop this practice.
Needless to say, it hasn't stopped. Some States, like CA, are still violating our individual RKBA's.
The question remains, why are 'conservatives' on FR supporting such prohibitions?
It is simply amazing to me that freepers would actually be in favor of gun control. Talk about oxy-morons ! Free and Control don't really go together do they ? Perhaps they would change the name to Controlled Repbulic. After all, that's what it would be when the guns get taken away.
Here is where I disagree. Our RKBA's are NOT enumerated. NONE of our rights are! The Bill of Rights is nothing more than specific prohibitions to the government indicating places it could not go.
Would a repeal of the Second Ammendment in any way affect our inherit RKBA?
I take the same opinion as Hamilton. Since the people did not specifically grant the Federal Government the power to pass any laws concerning the possession of arms, they can not do so.
Because of that, I suggest that the people of a state COULD give that power to a state. Why they would do so is beyond my comprehesion and is a most theoretical.
Because governments often totally ignore the restrictions we place upon them is the reason the courts were established. They are supposed to be the arbiters of whether the government has overstepped it's authority. Unfortunately, the courts seem to side with the government.
Just my two cents worth.
In my view, the states were already restricted by Art. VI, as tpaine points out. Which is why I tend to think the Fourteenth Amendment is redundant. Sure, it officially ended slavery; but from day one slavery was a horrific violation of human rights protected by the Constitution, though not extended to those who qualified as 'three-fifths of a person' for legislative apportionment purposes. This represents a gross injustice, with or without the Fourteenth. FWIW.