Replies

No it doesn't, and none of the Bill of Rights can or should be interpreted that way. For example, do you believe members of the public attending a murder trial have an absolute right to bring Uzis into the courtroom? Does a citizen have the right to bring a loaded high-powered rifle to a balcony overlooking a Presidential speech? Banning ALL restrictions is not a defensible position, and you would learn that if you tried to win your Supreme Court case by strapping on a flamethrower for oral argument.

You can't even bring cameras into some courtrooms, so that argument is irrelevant. Government property is totally different, and you seem pretty smart, so I'm surprised you would link the two.

So you are arguing that the Incorporation Doctrine should be reversed by SCOTUS and the Bill of Rights should only apply to Congress and not the States?

You mean should the Bill of Rights mean what it says? Yes.

The States have their own Constitutions. The Bill of Rights is for Congress.

That's a reasonable legal argument (albeit hopeless to overturn) -- but if you believe that, then what's the beef with Rudy? The laws he enforced were state laws and according to you not subject to the 2nd Amendment. That means RKBA does not exist if state lawmakers decide to ignore it.

That last sentence, if true, would nullify the entire Constitution. It's not "state lawmakers," it's state Constitutions.

Government property is totally different

There was a thread recently where many posters complained that banning guns from National Parks violated RKBA. Anyway, you said there were NO restrictions. You did not say government property was not subject to the 2nd Amendment.

You did clarify that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states, only to Congress. So that means a state can pass a constitutional amendment (in some states with initiative and referendum) and ban ALL firearms.