Replies

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.

phelanw said: "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. "

Maybe. Maybe not.

There's more to say about the Constitution than just what the Supreme Court has decided.

It is possible for people to form their own opinions about the Constitution and the Supreme Court's decisions.

The language of the Second Amendment refers quite explicitly to a "right of the people". It could have referred to a right of the states or a right of militias.

Further, the language of the Second Amendment is a bar to infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. One could readily understand it to make the people immune to federal action infringing that right.

The Fourteenth Amendment quite clearly makes several points.

One point is that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Another point is that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; "

If one grants that the Second Amendment is a guarantee of immunity from infringement, then the language of the Fourteenth Amendment would appear to prohibit any state from making a law which abriges such an immunity.

Please tell me how this reasoning is wrong.

Well, I get this idea quite well: the second amendment has NOT been incorporated by the Supreme Court...

That is exactly what Brady et al want us to believe. An Amendment goes into effect immediately after ratification, not after the court rules on it. Same as any other law.

To say otherwise is sheer lunacy.

Our Rights exist without the Protection of the Constitution. The Constitution does not GIVE us Rights. The Bill of Rights was added to increase protection for a minimal set of Rights for ALL Americans on top of and in addition to any State protections.

You seem to be very confused about a great many things. You are obviously a product of the last 20-30 years worth of what passes for academia today. Stop regurgitating what you were told and learn to think for yourself. Start reading the notes from the First Continental Congress to see what those who passed those Amendments thought the scope of their affect would be. It is quit clear that they assumed that any Federal BoR would supersede merely State protections. You will find out VERY quickly that you are quite, horribly, completely wrong.

This runs contrary to current legal fiction. It has to or the entire system would collapse under the weight of it. Think of all those Federal agencies and programs that have NO CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO EXIST. Think of all those legislators and lawyers who have built careers out of persecuting us for trying to exercise our Rights. They have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo...

So... apparently, do you...

"Therefore, as a matter of FEDERAL constitutional law, as that law presently stands, your state may confiscate your guns if it wants to.

That is exactly correct albeit entirely unconstitutional. But the latter is a mere trifling to the Marxists in the Cal Legislature. I have been waiting for the California Legislature to try and do it. The Silviera ruling from the 9th Circuit has set it up. I think it is only a matter of time - the right governor, the right courts, the right legislative balance and that's all she wrote. We are precariously close to that day in Cal. It will be interesting to see how the San Francisco Prop H vote turns out. And even more interesting if it passes.