robertpaulsen also said: "Years after the passage of the 14th amendment, some, but not all, of the BOR were applied to the states in a process known as selective incorporation.
I think I am beginning to see the difficulty we are having. You seem relatively content to describe "what is" whereas some of us feel justified in dealing with "what should be".
There is no mechanism, save that invented by the Supreme Court, to cause "privileges and immunities" to suddenly spring up as the result of one of their decisions.
The Gitlow decision was a recognition that freedom of speech is a privilege and immunity whose infringement is prohibited by the states through action of the Fourteenth Amendment. Freedom of speech, itself, is an unalienable right granted by our Creator.
In much the same fashion, the human right to self defense, (as enumerated in the Kalifornia Constitution) includes the right to utilize human tool-making skills to arm oneself suitably to fend off an attack by criminals or tyrannical governments. This right was not created by the Second Amendment nor is it in any way dependent upon it for its continuation.
That the right to keep and bear arms is among the "priveleges and immunities" of free people was explicitly stated by the Supreme Court in Dred Scott. Suggesting that lack of more recent Supreme Court decisions recognizing this immunity causes it not to exist, is to grant the Supreme Court the power to create privileges and immunities. There is no such power granted to the Supreme Court.
Well put...
No. The USSC said nothing about "privileges and immunities" in the above case. The "P&I vs. due process" argument is a separate subject. And it is not an unalienable right -- it may be regulated. They stated:
"For present purposes we may and do assume that freedom of speech and of the press-which are protected by the First Amendment from abridgment by Congress-are among the fundamental personal rights and 'liberties' protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the States."
"You seem relatively content to describe "what is" whereas some of us feel justified in dealing with "what should be"."
I don't care if you want to deal with "what should be" as long as you give me your reasoning behind it and "why" it should be.
What I object to are people telling me, for example, that the BOR applied to the states when what they mean is that the BOR should apply to the states. Big difference.