Replies

Thus the very importance of the rights protected by the First and Second Amendment was used as the basis for the argument that they did not apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. In later opinions, chiefly Presser v. Illinois 61 andMiller v. Texas 62 the Supreme Court adhered to the view. Cruikshank has clearly been superseded by twentieth century opinions which hold that portions of the Bill of Rights — and in particular the right to assembly with which Cruikshank dealt in addition to the Second Amendment — are binding upon the state governments. Given the legislative history of the Civil Rights Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment, and the more expanded views of incorporation which have become accepted in our own century, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment against infringement by officials acting under color of state law.

For those who want to infringe on my natural rights, I got the rope.

You've got rope. I've got a tall tree and your back if need be.

"it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights statutes and"

"meant to be" and "should be" is a far cry from "is".

You want to exercise your natural rights? Fine. Then go live above the tree line with the rest of the mountain men. You want to live among a civilized society? Then you'll follow societies laws.

Wow. Thanks for the link. I'm still reading and catching up on this thread.

Everything so far seems pretty clear to me...we should have a restriction on the number of lawyers we create in this country per year.

We should also have a three year waiting period for those that enter law school. We could call it a cooling off period.