Posted on 06/05/2009 5:14:41 AM PDT by WhiteCastle
(Corrected) Gun Control: In a case headed for the Supreme Court, a three-judge panel rules Chicago's gun ban constitutional since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states and cities. High court nominee Sonia Sotomayor concurs.Those Pennsylvania townsfolk bitterly clinging to their guns may have been premature in celebrating the decision in D.C. v. Heller that the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does indeed guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at ibdeditorials.com ...
I don’t know why they chose to go by selective incorporation, but they did. Wikipedia tells me the chief writer of the 14th amendment, John Bingham, and Hugo Black both agree with you. Apparently they wanted a measured response that only those rights whose abridgment would “shock the conscience” be incorporated. Might be just a function of different times.
It seems to me that unless the constitution mentions a restriction on the state they are still free to do what they want in that area.
The Founders intent was a bulwark between the power of government, and the whims of popular opinion, and the rights of an individual citizen.
Any reading of the Bill of Rights counter to this is invalid, whether it comes from a court, or not.
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine". Thomas Jefferson
“It seems to me that unless the constitution mentions a restriction on the state they are still free to do what they want in that area.”
I find myself bending that way. Then I ask, if it’s assumed that everything not specified as pertaining to the state pertains to the federal government (which would only make sense, since it is the federal Constitution), then why does the first amendment bother to say, “Congress shall make no law...” That’s never been answered to my satisfaction.
How many others do? I’m on my phone but it doesn’t seem to mention the federal government specifically. I think the answer is that it is the founding document of the federal government so when speaking about the states it must mention them. The amendments are of course negotiated so it could have just been an oddity of that particular negotiation.
Strange, it was a link to this very thread.
But not completely free.
This "state citizen doesn't have the right until it's incorporated" is obviously BS from the courts. What, the citizens didn't have the right before the 14th was passed? That's illogical.
Rights don't flow from the people, to the states, then to the fed, to be doled back out to the people as the feds see fit. The RKBA exists independently of the 2nd amendment. Massive confusion because the words, RKBA, appear in the 2nd amendment, and people figure that if they don't get the 2nd amendment, they don't get RKBA. But RKBA is found in other places.
Too bad, the people run to poppa fed instead of holding their state and local despots feet to the fire. Before they know it, all their "rights and privileges" are going to be what the feds dictate. You wish for incorporation? Careful what you wish for.
It's not. Click it.
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.