[FreedomCalls]

Technically the 2nd Amend. has not been incorporated via the 14th Amend. which means local and State governments can put all kinds of restrictions on firearms.

"Incorporation" only matters when the amendment says "Congress shall not" do something since it refers to Congress only -- unless "incorporated" via the 14th Amendment to mean state legislatures as well. Since the Second Amendment nowhere mentions "Congress" at all, the phrase "shall not be infringed" places a restriction on all levels of government subordinate to the Constitution.

[djf]

I would think the 14th amendment is not an issue here.

Connecticut, Georgia, and Massachusetts ratified the first ten amendments in 1939.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendments.html

[rollo tomasi]

I agree, but does the courts?

No, which is why State and local governments have been infrindging without remorse. Is it wrong to point out reality?

[MamaTexan]

Since the Second Amendment nowhere mentions "Congress" at all, the phrase "shall not be infringed" places a restriction on all levels of government subordinate to the Constitution.

Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520:
"... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]

-----------------------------------------

The problem is that the 14th Amendment created (for each and every one of us) an artificial *person*, or legal entity.

What the Founders referred to as a Citizen of the united States (or a State Citizen) was twisted to mean a citizen of the United States, or 'US citizen'.

______________________________________________________________________

"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:

______________________________________________________________________

In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."

______________________________________________________________________

The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."