Arming America - The Second Amendment now applies in the nation's capital. What about the...?

Reason ^ | June 27, 2008 | Damon W. Root

[RKV]

The Second does NOT apply to DC. Not even now. DC is going to stonewall. You still have to register, and you still can’t own a semi-auto pistol. This is going to be like George Wallace at the schoolhouse door in Alabama. We must press, we MUST embarrass these jerks into submission. The Constitution means the same thing in DC as in Chicago as in NYC as in Dallas, etc.

[CurlyDave]

I just hope that the McCain campaign has the good sense to capitalize on this decision and promise more gun favoring judges on the SC.

Make it a big issue...

[A Strict Constructionist]

“This is going to be like George Wallace at the schoolhouse door in Alabama.”

In my opinion, even though he was morally wrong, Wallace was correct in his defense of States Rights and Eisenhower was wrong and violated the Constitution. Either we have States Rights or we don’t. Situational “ethics” doesn’t make good Constitutional Law regardless of the cause.

[RKV]

Yep. Hussein’s already screwed the pooch on this one. He can go against 70+% of Americans or he can flip flop. If he does flip we’ve got him on trust. It’s a good day to be an American. Heh.

[RKV]

Can’t agree with you. States have powers, not rights. And the State of Alabama has no power to defy a Federal Court order when it comes to enforcement of Federal law. The 14th Amendment incorporated the first 8 rights from the BOR and it should have been that way since Reconstruction. Too bad the North backslid on its promise to the newly freed slaves.

[Pearls Before Swine]

The Second does NOT apply to DC. Not even now. DC is going to stonewall. You still have to register, and you still can’t own a semi-auto pistol.

Right you are. According to the DC published info on registration, they will implement the "keep" part of "keep and bear" arms for some arms (not pistols), but they will not implement the "bear" part.

[JRandomFreeper]

I had to work my head around that one the other night.... Persons have rights. Local and state governments have powers in regard to persons.

States have rights, in regard to the federal government. (plain reading of the 14th).

/johnny

[JRandomFreeper]

That was a screwup... I misquoted. Mea culpa.

/johnny

[purpleraine]

I think it was Ike and Faubus of Arkansas then Wallace and Kennedy. Eecellent use of federal power to enforce USSC rulings and human rights.

[JRandomFreeper]

It was the 10th.

/johnny

[ottbmare]

Either we have States Rights or we don’t.

We don't. That was established in April 1865, I'm sorry to say.

[meyer]

Frankly, if I lived in DC and wanted a gun, I’d buy a gun. I wouldn’t tell the facists running the local government about my purchase though.

[The_Reader_David]

SCOTUS only upheld the right to keep arms, not the right to bear arms. For the 2nd to be really secure, we need to get Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms (except when hunting or in incorporated areas of counties that haven’t banned carry). overturned.

As I am fond of pointing out, so long as there is an untrammeled right to open carry, a states may ban concealed carry; likewise so long as there is an untrammeled right to concealed carry, a state may ban open carry. Illinois bans both, plainly a violation of the 2nd Amendment as applied to the states under the equal protection clause of the 14th.

[Dead Corpse]

One major thing the decision didn't do, however, was directly address a crucial question going forward: whether the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is applicable against the states as well as the federal government (which administers Washington, D.C.).

Art 6. Para 2.

"laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding".

The "incorporation doctrine" is a myth.

[goldstategop]

I don't agree. The racist interpretation of states' rights has discredited the doctrine. As the Fourteenth Amendment, says no state may abridge the rights, immunities and privileges of its citizens. Before the Civil War, the Bill Of Rights only applied to the federal government. After the Civil War, that was extended also to the states. No American should be deprived of his freedoms on account of where he happens to live and the Radical Republicans were reacting to redress the abuses of rights of newly freed slaves by the Southern states.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
.

[Jack Black]

Either we have States Rights or we don’t. Situational “ethics” doesn’t make good Constitutional Law regardless of the cause.So you support the city of Chicago's claim that the second ammendment doesn't apply to States? Isn't the point of the 14th that the Bill or Rights apply to the states? Wasn't Wallace violating the 14th ammendment with his stand?

[A Strict Constructionist]

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

I agree with the 14th. but I still believe that those powers not given to the Federal Government still reside with the People and the States. So yes I believe in States Rights and don’t see Civil War as changing the Constitutionality of many Federal actions.

[ottbmare]

I still believe that those powers not given to the Federal Government still reside with the People and the States. So yes I believe in States Rights and don’t see Civil War as changing the Constitutionality of many Federal actions.

I agree with you in theory; it seems, however, that since the War Between the States the federal government has taken control of many state and local issue that the Founders certainly did not intend, and state sovreignity has been eroded markedly.

[purpleraine]

When the states are holding other humans as slaves or more recently setting up a class system based upon race, hard to agree they, the states, have a right to do that. How does a state have the right to ignore or take away the human rights of their residents?