[rollo tomasi]

When you looked at court cases, you must look first at the merits and meaning of the case to begin with. When I see a basic right to self defense being eroded by bad decisions based on racism I am sure as heck going to bring it up.

The infallibility of the USSC and lower courts who use their own prejudices and previous bad decisions, (Not the plain meaning of the Constitution) continue while rights are eroded or "regulated". Is it ever a wonder why the USSC refuses to update the meaning of the second amendment? No, they continue to fall back on "lynching is good" and other extreme cases to undermine the 2nd amendment and refuse to "incorporate" the basic right under the States. I guess the 2nd amendment was never really part of the BOR, Chief Justice Waite says it plainly. ..."shall not be infringed" only by Congress? Next we can't complain about State legs. or governors because only Congress is under the power of the First Amendment. It must be because some black robed racist who falls blind to lynching says so.

Please keep in mind I am not railing at you, just the strange decisions of Courts in the past and current Courts who hold their noses while citing previous cases.

[robertpaulsen]

"When I see a basic right to self defense being eroded by bad decisions based on racism I am sure as heck going to bring it up."

Well, if you're going to get your panties in a knot because you're applying 2005 law to events that happened in 1875, I'm not going to be the one to stop you.

A little perspective is required. In 1875, neither the first nor the second amendment applied to the states. The court ruled correctly.

The Enforcement Act of 1870, under which the individuals were indicted, was unconstitutional.