[Ken H]

You will agree that property grabs by state and local governments have increased since Kelo despite the fact that, as you say, there was no protection before Kelo?

Please quote where I said there was no protection before Kelo, or correct your post.

Let's not gloss over my main point with your technicality. State and local RKBA abuses would increase with a Kelo-type decision on gun rights by the U.S. Supreme Court if incorporated.

Quite a declarative statement - now prove it.

_____________________________________

Now I have a question. We have discussed ad nauseum the judicial interpretation of the Constitution with respect to the RKBA, so let's set that aside for now.

If interpreted correctly, would the Constitution prohibit state and local governments from infringing the RKBA, in your opinion?

[robertpaulsen]

"Please quote where I said there was no protection before Kelo, or correct your post."

You made a big deal about pointing out that:

"It is misleading to say that everyone would "then" have no protection against such infringments on the RKBA. There is no federal protection against state and local infringments "now"."

So, use that same argument regarding the Kelo decision:

"It is misleading to say that everyone would "then" have no protection against such infringments on property. There is no federal protection against state and local infringments "now"."

Correct? Or are you saying that there were such federal protections against state and local infringments before Kelo, but there aren't now?

Certainly if the federal protection used to be there then you can point to a federal case which ruled that way? And why did the USSC rule there was no protection in Kelo when a previous case (which you're going to look up for us) showed there was?

So. Was there federal protection before Kelo or not?

"If interpreted correctly, would the Constitution prohibit state and local governments from infringing the RKBA, in your opinion?"

The courts have repeatedly ruled that it would not.

[tpaine]

I have a question.

If interpreted correctly, would the Constitution prohibit state and local governments from infringing the RKBA, in your opinion?

Using the clear words of Article VI as a logical base, officials/judges "-- in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary, notwithstanding. --"

It is simply ludicrous to assert that the 2nd is not a part of our Constitution's "supreme Law of the Land"