That gets us into the issue of "incorporation" of the Bill of Rights. Many of us didn't like it when it was argued that the Second Amendment only applied to the Federal Government and that the states could do whatever they wanted to limit or ban guns. It seems like a similar argument.
Yep. I've written about that here.
Many of us didn't like it when it was argued that the Second Amendment only applied to the Federal Government and that the states could do whatever they wanted to limit or ban guns. It seems like a similar argument.
From a legal perspective, I had concerns about Gura's approach of using the 14th. Whether or not he proves logistically correct remains to be seen, in that with more gun owners and more proof of how that works out we gain ground politically. OTOH, with the delays in how long it takes to throw out bad state laws, I'm not encouraged by what I see. The thugs of this world are committed to our subjugation.
The big problem with Gura's approach is that when we ask FedGov to enforce a right against the States we are giving the likes of Obama means to enforce bogus means to violate them completely without recourse, particularly by treaty. OTOH, natural law competition was proving that gun ownership drops gun violence; States with gun laws more liberal than Congress is likely to ever allow especially so.