“Gun Rights are NOT A FEDERAL ISSUE. Gun rights are a STATES’ ISSUE!!!”
You may want to review the 14th Amendment; specifically: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
That says that states cannot restrict rights protected by the Constitution without due process and equal protection (in the latter instance, the states are prohibited from allowing certain persons to enjoy rights protected under the Constitution while denying those same rights to others similarly situated).
Contrary to Leftist distortions, the 14th Amendment was ratified by the states as simply a a post-civil war reconstruction amendment to give ex-slaves full rights and citizenship.
NO WAY the states ratified the 14th Amendment to give the federal government the sweeping powers the Leftist “incorporation doctrine” claims. How do we know that? If there was such an intent by the states toward such a dramatic change to reverse the limited-government intent of the Constitution, there would have been a record of SOME KIND OF DEBATE in Congress prior to ratification. NO such record exists.
The counterfeit incorporation doctrine was also rejected by the Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases not long after the 14th Amendment was ratified.
No matter. The Delusional Lying Left has marched on since around 1900 to slowly but surely undermine and erode the Constitution making sure the American people have NO EDUCATION about the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. So far, their plans seemed to have worked.
https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/amy-coney-barrett-on-guns/
Quotation:
From this history, Judge Barrett concluded that legislatures had the power to disarm those who present a threat to public safety. They can make that decision on a class-wide basis and do not need to rely on individual determinations. And, significantly, legislatures “may do so based on present-day judgments about categories of people whose possession of guns would endanger the public safety.” But a legislature has to justify that designation. Where it burdens a core right permanently, as here, it has to meet a very stringent standard (akin to strict scrutiny). According to Judge Barrett, 922(g)(1) is not tailored to an interest in preventing gun violence because it reaches too far: “It includes everything from Kanter’s offense, mail fraud, to selling pigs without a license in Massachusetts, redeeming large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan, and countless other state and federal offenses.” She further rejected the government’s statistical evidence showing a link between nonviolent prior offenses and future violent crime (those treat the whole nonviolent category together) as well as specifically between mail-fraud convictions and future recidivism (that study didn’t demonstrate whether later crimes were violent). Thus, “[a]bsent evidence that Kanter would pose a risk to the public safety if he possessed a gun, the government[] cannot permanently deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms.”
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-1478/18-1478-2019-03-15.pdf?
On May 24, 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Section 1341
carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a
$250,000 fine. Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day
in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also
ordered to pay a criminal penalty of $50,000, and he reimbursed Medicare over $27 million in a related civil settlement.
Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.
...
In contrast to these narrowly defined categorical bans,
§ 922(g)(1), which applies to all felons, is “wildly
overinclusive.” Adam Winkler, Scrutinizing the Second
Amendment, 105 MICH. L. REV. 683, 721 (2007). Its application
is not limited to those who have committed violent crimes like murder, assault, and rape.14 It also encompasses those who have committed any nonviolent felony or qualifying state-law misdemeanor—and that is an immense and diverse category.
It includes everything from Kanter’s offense, mail fraud, to
selling pigs without a license in Massachusetts, redeeming
large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan,
and countless other state and federal offenses.
Laws ch. 129, §§ 39, 43; Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.574a(1)(a),
(2)(d); see also, e.g., 21 U.S.C. § 676 (violating the Federal Meat Inspection Act in certain ways); 18 U.S.C. § 1621 (committing perjury); Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 266, § 30A (shoplifting goods valued at $100).15 These crimes, like many others captured by § 922(g), “rais[e] no particular suspicion that the convict is a threat to public safety.” Winkler, 105 MICH. L. REV. at 721. Put more colorfully, “It is hard to imagine how banning Martha Stewart or Enron’s Andrew Fastow from possessing a gun furthers public safety.”