I have no idea what that means.
First off, how have we ceded huge amounts of territory from the original intent of the Founders? Are you talking about all the Supreme Court rulings that said that the second amendment only applies to the federal government?
Secondly, if you're citing original intent of the Founders, then that certainly leaves out the 14th amendment (which occurred 100 years later), the amendment which supposedly applied the second amendment to the states.
Individual rights are Constitutionally protected, and RKBA falls under that. Any law that the states pass must be Constitutional. I agree with federalist ideas in general, within the bounds of the Constitution protecting individual liberties first and foremost.
paulsen trolls:
Then why is concealed carry a state issue?
It shouldn't be. "Shall not be infringed" is a definite restriction on the State & local power to reasonably regulate arms.
If RKBA is protected by the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, how can different states have different laws? Isn't there something about constitutional due process that requires uniformity?
You've answered your own question, bobbie. 'Equal protection' should enable us to carry in any State in the Union.
How can one state require registration, and others don't? Why are age limits different in each state? Why are some guns prohibited in one state but legal in another?
Because the US Constitution is being ignored when it comes to our RKBA's. -- Thats "why"..
Are you sure that the second amendment applies to the states?
Yes.
Or is each state guided solely by its State Constitution?
Incredible that you ask that question bobbie. Article VI and the 10th/14th Amendments are clear that States are 'guided' by both US & State Constitutions. Read much?
So you're saying that the second amendment protects the RKBA of individuals from both federal and state infringement
That's what the Constitution says paulsen.
--- have we ceded huge amounts of territory from the original intent of the Founders? Are you talking about all the Supreme Court rulings that said that the second amendment only applies to the federal government?
'Jim Crow' type 'rulings' you mean? "Rulings" intended to negate the 14th Amendments clear restrictions on State infringements of ex-slaves individual rights? Prohibitionists are now cynically using these same erroneous rulings in order to justify infringements on everyones rights to life, liberty, or property.
Secondly, if you're citing original intent of the Founders, then that certainly leaves out the 14th amendment (which occurred 100 years later), the amendment which supposedly applied the second amendment to the states.
The 2nd has always applied to States, as Article VI proves.
The 14th was ratified to make clear that the unconstitutional States 'rights' position was ended by the civil war.
Unfortunately, prohibitionists have taken up that rebel cause. -- Why is that paulsen?
Why do you people feel need to fight against our liberties?
It means that I believe the Constitution provided for a much more libertarian republic as the default, meant to limit government to the bare minimum necessary to protect and defend our liberties -- but that we find ourselves today in an entirely too statist and socialist state of being, that has crept in incrementally over many years.
The Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution, making them deliberately difficult to pass (so that people wouldn't tinker with the fundamentals every time they wanted to win a political battle). I believe you are being disingenuous by suggesting that any Amendment that was not part of the Bill of Rights somehow goes against the intent of the Founders, when they purposely made provisions for these Amendments as legitimate additions to the Constitution.