They said it applies to the states - but I thought the only thing with rights were individuals?
It means that states’ POWERS cannot be used to infringe on individuals’ RIGHTS.
Oh no - Texas v White confirms the 9th and 10th Amendments (and that 1800’s dustup) — the States have rights, both implicit and explicit.
I think they mean that the States cannot now violate the rights of individuals. I’ve had a BIG problem with this logic for a long time.
Many people argue the 2nd Amendment protects people from laws passed by the Federal government, and not the States. In othe words, the Federal government can’t ban your guns, but the State governments can if they want to.
Baloney. But this is what too many people believe.
Such an argument would mean that when the framers wrote the 1st amendment, they intended that no Federal law could establish a religion upon you, but that the States could.
Baloney.
Or that the 13th amendment prevented the Federal government from enslaving people, but the states were still free to do so.
Baloney.
The fact is, the Federal Constitution lists individual rights that government cannot violat — either federal, state or local. In fact, this was true even before the 14th amendment was passed. Judicial activism has simply turned the intention of the framers on their head and in so doing, claim that the 14th Amendment is the only link between the Federal Constitution and the liberties it protects by individuals in the separate states.
Hogwash.
But to answer your question again, the 9th Circuit ruled that the 14th Amendment means, not only can the Federal government not restrict your 2nd Amendment rights, but State and local governments can’t violate your 2nd Amendment rights.
Even as a misinterpretation, it is a victory, and I’LL TAKE IT! It is the best we are going to get in the current climate where the 10th Amendment has been constantly raped while the portion of ignorant, immoral voters has grown large enough to elect an islamic, America-hating, dictatorial communist stooge like Obama.