Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Roscoe
"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) Sound familiar?

Sorry, that's trumped by

14th Amendment Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
If the question remains, we look to Emerson and Haney, which are both pending before SCOTUS.
249 posted on 05/16/2002 1:33:49 PM PDT by ctdonath2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 237 | View Replies ]


To: ctdonath2
Sorry, that's trumped by

Wrong again.

"The relevant historical materials have been canvassed by this Court and by legal scholars. These materials demonstrate conclusively that Congress and the members of the legislatures of the ratifying States did not contemplate that the Fourteenth Amendment was a short-hand incorporation of the first eight amendments making them applicable as explicit restrictions upon the States." -- U.S. Supreme Court BARTKUS v. ILLINOIS, 359 U.S. 121 (1959)

258 posted on 05/16/2002 1:38:48 PM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson