“Left open was the question of whether states and local governments are required to do the same”
Wonder if the question would be so open if a state or local govt decided to outlaw newspapers, or to conduct random home searches without warrants, or even probable cause, or to outlaw the building of a mosque?
It seems that only the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to the states, huh?
X-ring. If newspapers were licensed like gun owners it would be a different song, huh? I can make the case that since newspapers are made of a limited natural resource they should be only two pages long, and you can only buy 1 a day (or less). Save the planet - don’t buy the NYT, its’ a tree killer. Heh.
Wait until the Roberts court clears up this question. I have a sneaking suspicion I am going to REALLY like his answer, but let's see.
It seems that way on its face, but there are certain clauses of the Bill of Rights that have not, this page has some good information about it.
The crazy thing is that 1A is the only 1 to specifically mention “Congress shall not”.
“It seems that only the 2nd amendment doesnt apply to the states, huh?”
Orginally, the Bill of Rights was written out of fear of the new federal government. The states were free to make whatever laws they wanted in this regard. Indeed, “states’ rights” was a rallying cry for the continuation of the rights of individual states to be free to make their own laws without federal government interference during the so-called “civil rights” movement of the 1950’s and 60’s. In what many called, quite rightly I think, an outright power grab by an “activist” supreme court, the rights guaranteed by the first ten amendments have slowly, one by one, been held to apply to the states. It seems that now, perhaps, the Second Amendment’s time has come. Will the Roberts’ Court also be an activist court and extend the rights of the Second Amendment beyond the original intent of the founders? We can only hope so.