Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Steelfish
I love the LAT headline; so many things wrong about it, I don't know whether to laugh or cry (for my country).

The most glaring of which is that they seem to believe that the USSC can "make" rights. I'm sure the LAT thinks the government grants all rights, you know, like any third world dictatorship.

10 posted on 03/02/2010 6:41:33 PM PST by jeffc (They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, hey-hey, ho-ho!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: All

Justices Signal They’re Ready To Make Gun Ownership A National Right
Are these people a holes ? IT ALREADY IS


37 posted on 03/02/2010 8:03:21 PM PST by sonic109
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: jeffc

The term “national right” is meaningless. The real question is WHO is prohibited from infringing the right to bear arms. It was originally understood that the Bill of Rights only prohibited the Federal Government from infringing the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.

The Framers were concerned that a Federal Government would run roughshod over local (individual State) concerns, and wanted to restrain the Feds from doing so. They were not particularly concerned about restraining THEIR OWN STATES from infringing on individual rights.

This gradually shifted after the Civil War, when it was determined, on a right-by-right basis, over many decades, that the prohibition against infringement of those rights applied against the States and subdivisions of States in addition to the Feds. The key to including States in the prohibition was the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the Civil War amendments.

The ONLY reason why ANY right in the Bill of Rights is protected from State (as opposed to Federal) infringement is because there was a Supreme Court case that said so — based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

In order to apply the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure against the States, it took two tries. In Weeks v. Colorado, 1949, the Court ruled that the Constitution did NOT apply to the States, at least not in all instances. This was reversed in Mapp v. Ohio, 1961.

There has never been a case where the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment, THROUGH the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, applies to the States. The ruling in Heller, which went against Washington DC, only applied to the Feds — establishing that the right to bear arms was a personal right.

You can bet that the NRA, or whoever was behind the Heller suit, sued the Feds first, as a strategic decision to establish the “individual right” precedent, as “Step ONe” of a two step stragegy, and when they had established that right under the Constitution, then take “Step Two” — extend the right to prohbit State action as well.

We are now in Step Two.


82 posted on 03/03/2010 8:28:03 AM PST by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson