Replies

Read post 57. First Congress. Debates on the purposed Amendments and their scope. The BoR was meant to protect a core set of Rights against all comers, including State and local governments.

"Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of community than in the legislative body." - Madison

He goes on for sometime, even talks briefly about the "tyranny of the majority" and how a BoR could over come this. Giving us all one, equal, protected set of Rights to bind us together as a Nation. Not as a minimum, but only as a starting point to be grown upon by each State. Start with a firm foundation kind of thing.

Do you begin to get the idea yet?

Well, I get this idea quite well: the second amendment has NOT been incorporated by the Supreme Court, so it does not apply to the states as a matter of constitutional jurisprudence. That is apart from your constitutional theory or mine or anyone else's. The court has had chances to revisit its failure to incorporate and has not taken the bait. Therefore, as a matter of FEDERAL constitutional law, as that law presently stands, your state may confiscate your guns if it wants to.

Now those statements are going to inflame the hell out of a lot of people, and several will probably yell "ignorant" and "you don't get it." People are often reading comprehension challenged. Given the supercilious tone of so many would-be constitutional experts on this thread, you'd think it would make me laugh. It doesn't. I like my guns as well as the next guy. If we want the law changed we're going to have to do it one state at a time, unless a majority on the Supreme Court decides to incorporate or otherwise change its mind. Here's a link showing the court's non-incorporation.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

TaTa.