[Viva Le Dissention]

No, no, this man is absolutely correct. The US Constitution provides no protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

Your state might (and probably does) have a similar provision in its own constitution that protects the right to bear arms, but if it doesn't, or if your state Supreme Court chooses to say the state is within its rights when banning guns, then you're out of luck, barring a entirely new line of thought on this subject by the US Supreme Court.

[jjm2111]

A state can offer MORE protections than the Federal constitution, but it cannot offer LESS.

[Jeff Head]

... so, then by your definition, the State could change its constitution and bar freedom of speech, tell people they had to attend a certain church or that they couldn't attend a specific church ... or that all of your property belinged to the state and it could confiscate it at will ... or that there would no longer be trials in that state but that a commission appointed by the governor ... who by the way would no longer be elected ... would pass judgement on all citizens?

I don't think so.

In the end ... it comes don to one question. Will the people suffer it? If they will not, then they must be armed to effectively press that point. Our founders understood this ... tyrants understand this ... we'd best not forget it.

[Stat-boy]

Your interpretation of the Constitution is correct as of the early 1800s. By the early 1900s, the Supreme Court "incorporated" most of the Bill of Rights as applying to the states. Articled that I have read seem to say that it is not entirely clear if the second amendment was incorporated. That's all I know; for more info ask a constitutional attorney!!

[southern rock]

or if your state Supreme Court chooses to say the state is within its rights when banning guns, then you're out of luck,

Sorry, but state outranks the fed, individual outranks the state. Always. This means that states have rights in their relationship with the federal government. They cannot, however, violate individual rights.

[Flint]

The rights in the Bill of Rights are natural rights common to all people. States are only allowed to work on stuff not enumerated in the Bill of Rights. "Shall Not Be Infringed" means just that and it means it for everyone including states.

[Sloth]

No, no, this man is absolutely correct. The US Constitution provides no protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

Wrong.

"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." -- Excerpt, Amendment XIV, U.S. Constitution.

[Go Gordon]

No, no, this man is absolutely correct. The US Constitution provides no protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

You're wrong. The federal protection is there in the Constitution. Near the end (I don't have my pocket version handy to quote from), it states that all rights not granted by the Feds, then falls to the states or the people. In the case of the 2nd Amendment, the feds protect everyone's right to bear arms, just like the right to vote (remember the ruling of the USSC in the Florida mess)

[kennyo]

No, no, this man is absolutely correct. The US Constitution provides no protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

Wrong!Read the amendments again.Notice how the 1st begins:"The congress shall make no law"...An explicit limitation on the congress.

the Second says..."shall not be infringed."It does not mention congress or any other body.It is all inclusive.

In the 10th amendment we see that the constitution was indeed on some level to apply to the states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 2nd amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,period.

As an aside,this is the same Bill Lockyer who commented that Ken Lay should be escorted to a jail cell and intoduced to a tatooed cell mate named Spike.The chief law-enforcement officer of California joking about the homosexual predation that goes on in our prisons.I wish some poor inmate would sue Lockyer and the state for not providing a safe place in which to incarcerate criminals.

[Eastbound]

Article VI, Para 2 disputes your reasoning, unless you don't believe the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. The supreme law of the land over-rides any thing in state's constitutions which are not in pursuance to the Bill of Rights. If bearing arms is a recognized right at the federal level, states cannot be contrary to it.

Even if there were no Second Amendment, the right to live and the means to protect your life is an un-numerated right shared by all humans.. Even animals have fangs.

[El Gato]

The US Constitution provides no protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

Amendment XIV: ... No state shall enforce any law which shall abridge the priveleges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

When this was passed, it was stated that the "priveledges or immunities" included those rights protected by the first 9 articles of amendment to the constitution, most specifically the 2nd. At the time the southern states were enforcing gun control on the newly freed colored population, and to stop that practice was one of the main reasons for the 14th amendment.

[StopGlobalWhining]

"...if your state Supreme Court chooses to say the state is within its rights when banning guns, then you're out of luck..."

Under this line of reasoning, the state could ignore the First Amendment and establish Islam as the official religion of the state. Practicing other religions in that state would be illegal, as long as that state's supreme court says it is.

[DugwayDuke]

The governing USSC case is UNITED STATES v. CRUIKSHANK ET AL. (92 U.S. 542)(October Term, 1875)

Quoting: "6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Bottom line. The 2nd is almost the only amendment not "incorporated".

IOW, VLD, you're right and those disagreeing with you are incorrect.

[justshutupandtakeit]

States now have to abide by all the amendments. In the past they were not constrained by the 1st amendment but absolutely were by the 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th. The first just addresses Congress "Congress shall pass no law...." The 2d is an absolute prohibition of any "infringements."

You believe a state doesn't have to abide by trail by juries, or can make you incriminate yourself? What constitution are you reading anyway?

[Regulator]

I followed a number of your comments, and I'd like to point out that Circuit Court decisions normally only apply in their circuit.

So, for instance, Quilici vs Morton Grove would only hold in the Seventh Circuit, in which it was adjudicated. Now another circuit might reference such a decision, or the Supreme Court itself, but until adjudicated in those courts, no presumption is made. Lockyer may be trying to set up a situation where the Ninth would have to rule, and he may be doing so now because he fears that the composition of the Ninth will change soon.

It should also be noted that Emerson, which concludes that there is an individual right, is only valid in the Fifth Circuit. But since it postdates the flawed, conclusionary logic of Quillici ("Shall not be infringed" only applies to Congress), and substitutes the obvious notion of a basic, incorporated right subject to restriction upon abrogation of duty as a citizen (i.e., for conviction of a crime), any Supreme Court decision would have to consider it, and I suspect would choose this interpretation in balance against Quillici.