Replies

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the states? What kind of tripe do you regurgitate with this lie? Every single line of the Constitution applies to the states, including every Amendment?

So the 16th Amendment doesn’t force the people in the various states to pay taxes?

So the 13th Amendment prohibits federal slavery but allows state slavery.

I’m sure you also think the 11th Amendment instituted only federal prohibition on alcohol, but didn’t affect any states or their cities.

Don’t say things that are clearly false and idiotic. The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution very clearly applies to the PEOPLE of America and that means the PEOPLE of the STATES. Don’t be dim.

As for what impact the 2nd Amendment has and favorable rulings therewith. Are you kidding me? I guess you forget that abortion was legal in many states before Roe vs. Wade was passed. I hate abortion, but anyone who supported it and had your point of view would have said, “my state allows it so we don’t need a right protected by the constitution.” After the Supremes ruled for Roe for a right not mentioned, not even hinted at in any shape or form in the constitution, all further efforts to restrict access to abortion were completely shattered.

And you say that a decisive ruling by the SCOTUS that the 2nd Amendment constitutes an INDIVIDUAL right would be without affect. My head hurts just trying to imagine where you come up with your illogical conclusions.

You cite many states that do not severely restrict firearms ownership and use for self defense, while you very conveniently and intentionally ignore several states that severely restrict firearms ownership and use. You have no answer to that, and I frankly don’t want one from you.

But to show your unlimited ignorance, San Francisco voted to BAN all handguns from within city limits, along with draconian restrictions on possession and use of rifles and ammunition. That ban was challenged in court and declared “UNCONSTITUTIONAL”.

Now just where the hell do you think the basis was for disallowing the voted-for ban? It sure as hell was not the California constitution, which specifies NO rights to firearms ownership, use, or protections. NONE.

Absent the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution, which CLEARLY APPLIED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, in contrast to your deluded claim that it does not, handguns would be no less banned within the city limits of San Francisco than they have been within the District of Columbia.

You are clueless. You are vacuous in your profound cluelessness. I refuse to continue to beat my head against a wall trying educate the ignorant.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

SAN FRANCISCO - A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.
Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.
In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

Bzzzzt. Wrong.

SAN FRANCISCO - A state trial judge sided Monday with the National Rifle Association in overturning a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco.
Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by an alarmingly high number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. The NRA sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.
In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

"The 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the states? What kind of tripe do you regurgitate with this lie?"

The second amendment is a limitation only on the federal government. States are guided by their state constitution on gun issues.

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
-- US v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

"The Supreme Court has specifically rejected the proposition that the entire Bill of Rights applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment. Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms."
-- Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 532 F.Supp. 1169 (N.D.Ill. 1981)

"In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments. In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them."
-- Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

"We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and, even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
-- Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894)

Plus, there are numerous lower federal Circuit Court decisions that say the same thing -- the second amendment only applies as a restriction on the federal government.

Unless, of course, the U.S. Supreme Court, all 11 lower federal Circuit Courts, and all the District Courts they serve are wrong and you're right.

"And you say that a decisive ruling by the SCOTUS that the 2nd Amendment constitutes an INDIVIDUAL right would be without affect. My head hurts just trying to imagine where you come up with your illogical conclusions."

It would confirm that the citizens of Washington, DC have their individual RKBA protected -- but the DC Circuit already ruled that. So, yes, it would be without effect.

Now, IF the U.S. Supreme Court took further action and incorporated the second amendment and made it applicable to the states, then there would be a small effect. Cities in Illinois like Chicago, Morton Grove, Wilmette, and New York and LA, would be forced to protect that individual right.

Then there's the negative effect. As mentioned in Parker, the U.S. Supreme Court could also say the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry. Sarah Brady would have a field day with that one, huh?

"But to show your unlimited ignorance, San Francisco voted to BAN all handguns ..."

Since Mojave addressed that, I see no reason to pile on.