When the Bill of Rights was written, they were a restriction only on the federal government. After the ratification of the 14th amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually "incorporated" some of the Bill of Rights and made them applicable to the states.
The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated (neither has the 3rd Amendment, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment). You can read it here, starting with Bar to Federal Action.
Which, as the quotations I posted from the ratification debates proved out, is a complete lie.
Also, incoroperation is a judicial fantasy. It is in no part of the Constitution, nor was it in the Debates mentioned that those Amendments required judicial approval before taking effect. The ratification prossess is quite clear and its effects are the same as any other law.
Further, you are using as a source a JOURNALISTS opinion page? Can you lose any more credibility?
This is a common misconception, clearly contradicted by Article VI.. -- Which you have never been able to refute, -- nor have you ever been able to cite a rational constitutional opinion on that specific issue. -- Everyone ignores Article VI because it is irrefutable.
After the ratification of the 14th amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has gradually "incorporated" some of the Bill of Rights and made them applicable to the states.
Again, "incorporation" was a legal fiction invented by the USSC in order to ignore the clear words of the 14th on this same issue.
-- The 14th merely reiterated that our rights to life liberty or property cannot be violated at any level of gov't; -- exactly as Article VI said, -- before it became necessary [thru war] to clarify the issue.
The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated (neither has the 3rd Amendment, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment). You can read it here, starting with Bar to Federal Action.
The USSC is in an "incorporation" box of their own making. If they admit the 2nd as written is our supreme "Law if the Land"; -- they admit that the gov't has been infringing upon it.
Which leaves us paulsen, -- wondering why you defend both non - incorporation, and the power of States to prohibit arms. Why is that?
It is interesting that, to the framers and opponents of the 14th amendment, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms WAS incorporated!
The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right To Keep and Bear Arms: The Intent of the Framers, by Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., attorney and
counselor at law