[Ken H]

Oh, I understand.

Apparently not, from reading the rest of your post.

It's all those other FReepers on the Terry Stops thread that don't undrstand. They think it's a huge restriction on right to privacy, freedom from unreasonable searches, and freedom from self-incrimination, not realizing that it's no big deal, according to you.

I confined my comments to correcting your misunderstanding of a basic constitutional concept.

I chose not to be diverted from the issue of your constitutional ignorance by your misstatement of my position.

Yep, I bet no state is going to change their Terry Stop laws given the new ruling.

Do you dispute that the decision regarding ID's was left up to the States?

Do you dispute that the same would apply with a "no protected individual RKBA" ruling by USSC?

[inquest]

Speaking of Terry's law, that case provides an excellent example of the dangers of "incorporation". If the SCOTUS had simply ruled that the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the states and left it at that, that wouldn't have been much of a problem (at least for people outside of Nevada). But instead, they ruled that a) it did apply, and b) Nevada hadn't violated it. This results in very disturbing implications for how the 4th amendment is applied to the federal government.