"Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases."
It was rejected. The Founders did not want such constitutional limitations placed on the states.
Yes, the Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution. But an amendment like the 14th (which supposedly applied the BOR to the states) was totally contrary to the original intent of the Founders!
For you to sit there say that because it was an amendment it therefore complied with original intent is, excuse me, absurd.
The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on the federal government only. Whether the second amendment protects an individual right or a collective right is moot when it comes to state law, since every court in the land has ruled that the second amendment does not apply to state laws. Period.
Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. That's just the way it is, and coincidentally, that is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it. They trusted their state over everything else. They identified themselves by their state, as a Virginian or a Georgian, and took pride in the things that made their state different.
To think they would press for some kind of constitutional federal uniformity is ludicrous.
Do you feel the same way about the states' ability to regulate the legalization of marijuana?
It was the original intent of the Founders to have the Bill of Rights restrain solely the newly formed federal government.
2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
Case in point. In the deliberations of the constitution, Madison proposed: "Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit: No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." It was rejected. The Founders did not want such constitutional limitations placed on the states.
It was rejected. The Founders had already written/ratified Article VI Sec 2. There was no need for further specificity.
Yes, the Founders also provided for Amendments to the Constitution. But an amendment like the 14th (which supposedly applied the BOR to the states) was totally contrary to the original intent of the Founders!
The 14th was necessary to clarify the issue. Southern States were violating 2nd Amendment rights using the erroneous 'Barron' decision.
For you to sit there say that because it was an amendment it therefore complied with original intent is, excuse me, absurd.
Paulsen, your's is the absurd argument, based solely on a redundant Madison proposal. Give it a rest. The Constitution is quite clear in defending individual rights.
The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on the federal government only.
The second amendment was, and is, a restriction on fed/state/local governments. Clearly, this "right of the people" -- "shall not be infringed".
Whether the second amendment protects an individual right or a collective right is moot when it comes to state law, since every court in the land has ruled that the second amendment does not apply to state laws. Period.
Simply not true. Nunn_v_Georgia proves otherwise:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt
Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution.
Not true in Calif, Ill, & NY, - just for starters.
That's just the way it is, and coincidentally, that is the way the Founding Fathers wanted it. They trusted their state over everything else. They identified themselves by their state, as a Virginian or a Georgian, and took pride in the things that made their state different. To think they would press for some kind of constitutional federal uniformity is ludicrous.
Dream on paulsen, -- wrap yourself in an imaginary patriotism, 'protected' by States that are just as politically corrupted as the federal government.