Replies

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered individuals...It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of."

--Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers

There are two things going on here with "incorporation" that shouldn't be confused. A 2nd Amendment right can be "incorporated" into a State Constitution by the supremacy clause (as Mason intimated), but the Congress STILL wouldn't have the power to enforce that on a state, because that was a reserved power.

It wasn't till section 5 of the 14th Amendment came along that Congress could meddle with State due process. That's how we got busing and equal distribution of wealth (what "equal protection" means to some some Federals) and other do-good liberal acts.

264 H.Akston

_____________________________________

I agree with the above statement --

an unalienable right cannot be taken away, at least, not without individual due process. The unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property are an example.

But the right to keep and bear arms is not an unalienable right;

-- how can we forbid all 16-year-olds from buying a gun? Can we take his life? Can we lock him up? Can we take the property he, for example, receives in a will?

The RKBA is a fundamental right, protected (or not) by the state.
267 robertpaulsen

_________________________________________

"Rights of the people at large": IE collective rights at the state level, "the majority" refers to congress.

If you believe there are any quotes from Founders, or even merely important participants in uur early republic, that say the states were restricted by any part of the Bill of Rights feel free to ping me.

The earliest I've seen that contention made is by Rawles circa 1830's.
273 mrsmith

________________________________________

Dead Corpse wrote:

Re: Gallatin

Harvard Teacher. Pennsylvania State Legislator. Secretary of the Treasury from 1801-1814 under two different Presidents.

If he didn't know what was going on, who would?

My only other nit to pick would be that
BECAUSE of the Supremacy Clause, the Second should NEED no "incorporation".

Incorporation is a judicial fantasy where laws do not apply unless they have been ruled on by some black robed pervert.

The 14th may have its flaws, but Incorporation is Black Death on wheels.

_________________________________________

Exactly, DC ..

"BECAUSE of the Supremacy Clause, the Second should NEED no "incorporation".

It's really amusing to see all of these 'states rights' clowns dance around that simple constitutional fact.

Your Gallatin quote brought them all out prancing, trying to justify State infringements on our clearly self evident, fundamental & inalienable RKBA's.

Akston claims it can be violated by a States "reserved power"

Paulsen asserts; " -- the right to keep and bear arms is not an unalienable right -- "

And mrs mith? - He just denies that "-- even merely important participants", like Gallatin, " --that say the states were restricted by any part of the Bill of Rights" -- knew what they were writing about.

What a pitiful display of denial, unfounded assertion, and 'found' powers.

hat a pitiful display of denial, unfounded assertion, and 'found' powers.

Agreed. However, I can think of ONE occasion when our Right to Keep and Bear Arms could be "regulated". While performing the voluntary duty as a called up militia. At such a point, we would be volunteering for service and likely subject to an official authority, our civilian "officers", to give us our marching orders.

But even in that instance it would be expected of us to show up bearing suitable arms of our own. The very same kind Sarah Brady and her communist sympathizers in Congress want to take away from us.

Also of note, anyone NOT volunteering should a call for the militia to form, would still not be deprived of their RKBA. The Militia Act has a stipulation for objects on philosophical and religious grounds if I remember correctly. Only those WILLING to go fight would be asked to do so.

You have such profound misunderstandings. There are too many false accusations to correct! I'll just pick two.

1. "Akston claims it can be violated by a States "reserved power""

I don't. It can't be violated by a state's reserved power because the Supremacy clause incorporates the 2nd Amendment into State Constitutions. I think you also have that view of the Supremacy Clause!

2. "Your Gallatin quote brought them all out prancing, trying to justify State infringements on our clearly self evident, fundamental & inalienable RKBA's."

No such thing happened! There's no justification for keeping the people (responsible grownups) from Keeping and Bearing Arms!

We agree that Barron was a wrong decision, because JM neglected the meaning of the supremacy clause!

You're all over the place. I think you thrash because you have contempt for the South and by default, the basic structure set up by the Constitution, and 10th Amendment rights, which include "states' rights', and are as important as the RKBA.