[CHICAGOFARMER]

This destroys the Brady Foundation, the Clinton era attorney's arguments, the Million Misguided Mommies Marcher arguement that Gun (firearms) should be taken away from American Citizens.

[Hugin]

“Whether Dr. Emerson wins on the remand or appeals and carries his case ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court,” LaCourse said, “the fact remains that the Fifth Circuit has ruled that the Second Amendment, like all other amendments referring to ‘the people’ in our Bill of Rights, protects the right of an individual citizen, not the state. The court has smashed a cornerstone of the anti-gun house of cards.”

HOO-RAH!

[lavaroise]

While the court’s decision in U.S. v Emerson was to reverse and remand a lower court ruling that cleared Dr. Timothy Joe Emerson of a federal violation of the 1994 Domestic Violence Act,

I thought people were protected from double jeopardy. It must not have been an argument about guilt of the person but about usage of the law by law enforcement. The media is very vague about this.

[Freemeorkillme]

This decision is tremendous for us conservative-right-to-carry-and-bare NJersyans. Good thing for US citizens and the Bret Schundler campaign here in NJ, one of the biggest liberal states with both land extending to Union and Conferedates alike.

Go Bret GO!

[lowbridge]

bump

[Pearman]

While this is indeed great news, I have a question for the lawyers out there.

One of the legacies of liberal SCOTUS decisions is the so called "incorporation doctrine." This is the doctrine that selected parts of the Constitution, originally written as restraints on the federal govenment, are also applicable to the individual states because of the enactment of the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Most conservatives decry this doctrine. To make matters worse, it has been applied selectively. In other words it has been used only when it has helped the liberal Justices to "feel good" about their decisions, "feeling good" being the criterion for almost all liberal decision making.

Now it is my understanding that the Second Amendment has never been "incorporated", i.e., it has never been held to apply to the states. So my question is this. Will conservatives now raise the ante and take the anomalous (for them) position that the Second Amendment applies to the states via the incorporation doctrine?

[nygoose]

Checked the NRA home page. No comment. Do you think that the NRA has been following this case? Where are these people?