Replies

Of course they had to "find" it in the 14th Amendment - they were never looking anywhere else. That's why the ruling commented that: "We therefore conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

Notice they didn't note that the right to keep and bear arms is mandated by the 2nd Amendment, but rather that is was merely a traditional concept? That's because they are ruling under administrative law, which is presumed to be applied to all the natural persons in order to make them corporate employees of the federal government. That's how "rights" gets turned into "privileges," and why the 14th Amendment becomes relevent - it addresses federally-created corporate persons and employees.

Don't like it? Tough - the status change is a judicially recognized presumption. And therefore, because it is not proven fact, it need not be disproven. And so there are no judicially recognized methods to dismiss this presumption, let alone disprove it.

Oh, and they've also ruled that they don't have to inform you of this presumption, either, and if you even step foot in court you've accepted their presumption by showing up (and of course they throw you in jail if you don't).

BTW, this is also the little gotcha that defeats people who claim their rights against unfair taxation.

Kafka was a piker.

I am also curious to know how the 14th Amendment ‘aware’ Freepers view the inclusion of comments referring to that Amendment in the case for the majority on this decision.

The logical gymnastics the Court had to go through are a result of some really bad decisions regarding the 14th amendment's privileges and immunities clause, which basically say, with no historical support, that the P&I guaranteed are those due strictly to being a citizen of the US, rather than "immunities" against infringements of preexisting rights.

It's a great conservative decision from beginning to end. The court followed all precedents, even the stupid ones. That's the court's job, as it has no business overruling the Supreme Court on anything. So, the court incorporated the 2nd via the usual route while explaining that route both clearly and concisely. I found it very helpful. In addition, the court seemed to take great effort to avoid defining the actual contours of rkba, leaving that task for the Supreme Court (a very wise move, imo).

My favorite quote:

[W]hereas the Supreme Court has previously incorporated rights the colonists fought for, we have here both a right they fought for and the right that allowed them to fight.

Amen.