"Article VI makes it clear that our supreme Law of the Land cannot be infringed, '-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --'"
Still trying that deception. Article VI is referring to laws passed which do NOT apply only to the fedgov. Since the BoR was created to reduce fear of the fedgov it was not intended to apply to states. Anti-federalists (who wanted MORE state autonomy) would have NEVER supported restrictions on them through the BoR.
State governments were not covered as Marshall has ruled nor were they intended to be.
The Fourteenth was passed because the states could LEGALLY violate the BoR.
What "majority rule" has to do with this only exists within your mind.
"-- The BoR was written to control ONLY the federal government while leaving state governments free to violate them at will if not prohibited within their constitutions. --"
The above is an all too common misconception. -- Article VI makes it clear that our supreme Law of the Land cannot be infringed, "-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Then, of course, State governments insisted that they are "-- free to violate them [individual rights] at will if not prohibited within their constitutions --"; a major contributing factor to the civil war.
After the war the 14th was ratified to reiterate that fed, state or local governments could not deprive us of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.
Once again, -- government officials at every level attempted to ignore the clear basic principle that individual rights cannot be infringed.
Finally, after nearly two hundred years of this 'majority rule' type madness, -some- individual rights are being acknowledged as uninfringeable.
Our RKBA's is the notable exception.
Why do you suppose that is the case JSUATI?
"-- any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"
Still trying that deception.
Those words are not 'deceptive'. Some here characterize them that way to enable gungrabbing purposes.
Article VI is referring to laws passed which do NOT apply only to the fedgov.
That's what you imagine, because it fits in with an agenda that allows gun control.
Since the BoR was created to reduce fear of the fedgov it was not intended to apply to states.
So say the Brady bunch.
Anti-federalists (who wanted MORE state autonomy) would have NEVER supported restrictions on them through the BoR.
They mistakenly thought that Article VI did not apply to States. They were wrong. Civil war & the 14th closed that issue.
State governments were not covered as Marshall has ruled nor were they intended to be.
Marshall's 1833 opinion in Barron was not a "rule". Courts cannot make law.
The Fourteenth was passed because the states could LEGALLY violate the BoR.
They 'believed' they could. The 14th rectified that mistake; but still, -- government officials at every level attempted to ignore the clear basic principle that individual rights cannot be infringed.
Finally, after nearly two hundred years of this 'majority rule' type madness, -some- individual rights are being acknowledged as uninfringeable.
Our RKBA's is the notable exception.
Why do you suppose that is the case JSUATI?
What "majority rule" has to do with this only exists within your mind.
On the contrary; - both major political parties and the majority of Americans that support those parties also support prohibitions on certain arms, just as you've admitted elsewhere on this thread.
The 'majority' is attempting to infringe on our RKBA's.