Happy to.
EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL COURT IN EVERY SINGLE GUN CASE BEFORE IT (save one) HAS RULED THAT A) THE SECOND AMENDMENT ONLY APPLIES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND B) IT PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE STATES TO FORM ARMED MILITIAS.
YOUR INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS PROTECTED ONLY BY YOUR STATE CONSTITUTION.
In return, please answer one question for me. If the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, how can some states allow concealed carry and others do not? I would think that would be against due process or equal protection or something like that.
Do you mean the Cruikshank decision, or some other?
Are you saying that the 2d is the only amendment that applies to government powers and that the people can never infringe on the "right" of the government to arm itself.
That's pretty bizare.
Why did they put it in there at all?
Were they saying that we are going to have a tyranny and the people who just threw off a tyranny have no right to resist the new one?
Are you saying that the people named in the amendment are the people in the government only?
You make absolutely no sense at all.
US v Emerson - the court found the 2nd Amendment to be an individual right
Most States that allow concealed carry consider it a privilege. The only one that does not is VT. There it is simply recognized and treated as the right it is. The fact that various States and Congress have ignored the fact that CC is an individual right covered by the 2nd Amend, does not alter, or eliminate the Amned, or it's meaning.
Due process refers to following the rules of order in producing, and prosecuting law. It does not refer to, or mean the law itself is Constitutional. Equal protection refers to the application of law. It means any particular law must apply to everyone, with no exceptions. So for instance a law against murder must apply to everyone. By virtue of the 14th, the 2nd Amend must apply to all jurisdictions with legislative and rule making power.
The SCOTUS has already said that the right in the 2nd Amend is an individual right and it is the people's right. Just because some due process was followed, does not mean any law is Constitutional. That was determined in Marbury vs Madison. Due process also does not determine equal protection. That was manifest in Plessey vs Ferguson and that wasn't to begin being corrected until Brown vs Board of Ed and following cases. The fact that equal protection is not obtained and an Unconstitutional law is allowed to stand, does not establish, or render any validity to claims of equal protection, or Constitutionality, only rational examination can determine that.
A good example of rational examination and how the reality of Constitutionality is not determined simply by Court decree, can be seen in Roe vs Wade. The SCOTUS used the right to privacy found in the 4th Amend to overturn a State law. The 4th Amends prohibition only refered to unreasonable searches and sezures, not that the right to privacy was absolute and prevented any particular law from being established. By the Court's logic, laws against murder done in privacy are unconstitutional. Now the right to privacy is simply applied in an arbitrary fashion to protect some activities, regardless of whether they're even done in private.
"EVERY SINGLE FEDERAL COURT IN EVERY SINGLE GUN CASE BEFORE IT (save one) HAS RULED THAT A) THE SECOND AMENDMENT ONLY APPLIES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT"
Then why has Congress violated the 2nd Amend?
"IT PROTECTS THE RIGHT OF THE STATES TO FORM ARMED MILITIAS."
The Constitution doesn't say the right of the States to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says the right of the people shall not be infringed. Those are the same people referred to in all the other Amends. Once before men were expluded from being considered as a person and member of "people", the people who are individuals the Bill of Rights was intended to protect.
"The words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the 'sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this sovereignty. The question before us is, whether the class of persons described in the plea in abatement compose a portion of this people, and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included..." (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 [1856])
"In return, please answer one question for me. If the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, how can some states allow concealed carry and others do not? I would think that would be against due process or equal protection or something like that."
Short answer on concealed carry:
All states but Vermont are infringing on the Second, IMO. I am a poor choice to answer that question. Not that I agree with all your determinations, But in general, I distrust this idea of seeking permission {and paying money} to the "state" for a right that is God given. I worry that we are legitimizing the idea that rights are from the state and not really "inalienable".The NRA powers that be on FR tell me to "trust us" for now, So I will.
I took a few moments to review some of your posts...You seem to have spent some time studying court decisions. {Good!} It seems you have spent some time wrangling with legal truths. {Also good!} I'll also assume the legal training you have is far superior to mine. {extremely minimal} We don't have to look very far back to see that it was once legal for one man to own another, That it was legal to use force to make "lesser men" eat, learn, and play separately from the rest. I'm told that Hitler used basically sound legal methods to preform his dirty work. Because our fellow man can be evil, we aren't always impressed with all official decrees.
Another parting thought.... The Bill of Rights......Those men that wrote it.... IF you were there...Way back when the country was new, and you had just endured the greatest struggle of your time. How would you record what you had learned? How would you proclaim the liberty you had won to your descendants?...Would you write it in such a way that it could only be interpreted by a few well educated elite?...Or would you write these ideas with clear meaning and obvious intent, to be understood by the common reader? {The way the Bill of Rights WAS written, IMO!}