Posted on 06/02/2009 1:29:13 PM PDT by ctdonath2
Seventh Circuit Rules That, Under Supreme Court Precedent, the Second Amendment Is Not Incorporated Against the States:
The case is NRA v. City of Chicago, the challenge to the Chicago handgun ban.
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
Good? Bad? Ugly?
If they 2nd amendment isn’t, then doesn’t it logic also dictate that none of the other amendments are either?
Weird how wrong people can be about things legal, for all these years, especially when progressive judges are involved.
I agree. The history on this question favors the NRA
Pray. 5-4 last time was too damn close for my liking. That said, I am positive that incorporation of the 2nd is the correct understanding after passage of the 14th Amendment. Either via substantive due process or privileges and immunities, doesn’t matter. Failure to incorporate is, in my opinion, one more step to a civil war. RKBA has always been about power and trust. When the elites demonstrate they don’t trust us, we can’t afford to give them power. It’s that simple. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
Federalism is an older and more deeply rooted tradition than is a right to carry any particular kind of weapon. How arguments of this kind will affect proposals to “incorporate” the second amendment are for the Justices rather than a court of appeals.Translation: "Favoring the federal government as the sovereign, we observe that the 2nd Amendment hasn't been formally incorporated, so we have to assume it isn't; any change thereto is up to the Supreme Court. Good luck."
A very interesting time is coming soon. Assuming nothing else huge happens, we'll probably see a SCOTUS ruling on 2ndA incorporation very soon. If the answer isn't an affirmation of fundamental rights, hilarity will ensue.
Correct.
Utterly amazing that some Constitutional rights are considered “fundamental” and others not.
It’s ridiculous, isn’t it, judges picking and choosing which rights are “fundamental” and which ones apply and don’t apply. We may need another Constitutional convention to sort this out.
Welcome to the Liberal Activist interpretation of the constitution as a "living, breathing document". It'll breathe whatever they pump into it, and they'll suck out whatever they don't want in it. Rights are not inalienable and granted by a Creator, they are entirely revocable and granted by the State.
The Supreme Court has followed a practice called "selective incorporation," whereby some parts of the bill of rights apply to the states and some don't. (The 7th Amendment right to a jury trial in civil cases and the 5th Amendment requirement of a grand jury in criminal cases have been held not to apply to the states; most of the rest has been held to be binding on the states.)
The Supreme Court held (back in the 1870s and 1880s) that the Second Amendment binds only the federal government, not the states. Today's decision (which, by the way, was by a very conservative panel-- Easterbrook and Posner are two of the leading conservative judges and were both appointed by Ronald Reagan) says simply that the Supreme Court cases, however old, are still binding on the lower courts and only SCOTUS itself can overrule them.
Guess Obama and ACORN send them contributions.
Most of the others have been. SCOTUS established a strange, but long-running principle that each right is deemed incorporated ONLY when addressed INDIVIDUALLY. They just haven’t gotten to the 2nd yet.
In our current environment, a Constitutional convention would probably be a bad idea.
Been heading that way since Thurgood Marshall. Maybe even before, so if so, I stand corrected.
In the meantime, patriots will keep their powder dry.
Bad. Ugly, actually. Denies RKBA is “fundamental”, that the states can stomp on it if they like, and the feds can say nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.