Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ken H
Quote
Let me ask one more time. Are States bound by the Second Amendment in your opinion?

I don't know what you are trying to get at. I am not a Justice for the SCOTUS and don't make policy. The Constitution establishes the powers of the Federal Government. The Bill of Rights limits the Federal authority. Within the BoR rights not protected specfically are allowed to be addressed by State Constitutions. States are bound to obey Federal laws, giving a distinct message that they are bound by the 2A of the BoR.

If you are going to chase a rabbit and ask why States ban certain weapons, then I suggest you pay particular attention to the rulings of the SCOTUS on the Emerson case. The 5th Circuit Court agreed that the 2A protects an individual's RKBA. The 12th Circuit Court ruled exactly the opposite. It will be up to the SCOTUS to resolve the conflict.
109 posted on 07/16/2004 11:30:05 AM PDT by rjsimmons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: rjsimmons
12th? I thought it was the 9th?

Beware court rulings. The last hundred years has seen some real stinkers as far as contorted logic in judicial opinion is concerned. They have pretty much tossed the Founders warnings about revisiting the ideology at the Construction of our Nation, for interpretation, right out the window.

That is how we ended up with things like California's gun ban and abortion "rights".

111 posted on 07/16/2004 11:36:24 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

To: rjsimmons
States are bound to obey Federal laws, giving a distinct message that they are bound by the 2A of the BoR.

That's all I was asking, and I agree.

If you are going to chase a rabbit and ask why States ban certain weapons, then I suggest you pay particular attention to the rulings of the SCOTUS on the Emerson case. The 5th Circuit Court agreed that the 2A protects an individual's RKBA. The 12th Circuit Court ruled exactly the opposite. It will be up to the SCOTUS to resolve the conflict.

USSC ducked and let a bad ruling stand.

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | 1/24/03 | AP

Posted on 01/26/2003 10:07:46 AM CST by FSPress

LUBBOCK, Texas (AP) -- A man was sentenced Friday to 2½ years in prison for owning guns while under a protective order -- a limitation on gun rights that an appeals court held was constitutionally acceptable.

The U.S. Supreme Court last June declined to hear arguments that Timothy Emerson should have been allowed to keep his guns under the Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms."

120 posted on 07/16/2004 11:58:20 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

To: rjsimmons
"It will be up to the SCOTUS to resolve the conflict."

Dateline: 06/10/02
"Justices today declined without comment or dissent to consider two cases involving the Justice Department's recently stated policy that the Constitution's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals, not just the state militias."

"The cases rejected by the Supreme Court are Emerson v. United States, and Haney v. United States."
--usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa061002a.htm

(On December 1, 2003, the USSC also rejected Silveira v. Lockyer)

121 posted on 07/16/2004 11:58:39 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson