[ltlflwr]

My father is quite clear on this issue. You can help his campaign at FrankCreel.org!

[ltlflwr]

ping!

[ffrancone]

I am not sure Mr. Creel is correct in his interpretation of the second amendment. His beef is with the idea that the 14th amendment "incorporates" the bill of rights as against the states. I agree with Mr. Creel that the incorporation doctrine was a pernicious piece of judicial legislation. But I do not think that incorporation is necessary to apply the second amendment to the states.

A close reading of the bill of rights suggests that some of the amendments were intended only as a check on the power of congress--eg the first amendment, which states 'congress shall make no law . . .' Obviously, this amendment limits only congress. So the "incorporation" dipsy doodle of the Warren Court was necessary to apply the first amendment as against the states.

By way of contrast, the second amendment states that the rights of the "people" to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Congress is not mentioned. In fact, by using the passive voice, the second amendment does not have congress, or the federal government, as the subject of the sentence. It seems to say that noone may infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

Do any FREEPERS know if the legislative history of the second amendment sheds any light on this argument?

[archy]

That it does now, in fact, limit the powers of the states is due to twisted jurisprudence at the highest level. The corruption of the 14th Amendment has built up a corpus of precedential holdings that, in fact and effect, stands the Bill of Rights on its head. All supporters of the Second Amendment's guarantee should thoroughly deplore and seek to reverse this tragic fact.

Well, not quite. I'll happily grant that the XIV Amendment is flawed and has been used to perverted ends, further weakening the Constitution's effect. But in addition to that far from perfect precedent, there's also the matter of the phrasing of Article VI regarding the legal supremacy of the constitution itself:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And, of course, recall also the Supreme Court's finding from Marbury vs. Madison, in 1803:

All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.

[Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)

...All supporters of the Second Amendment's guarantee should thoroughly deplore and seek to reverse this tragic fact.

All generalities are untrue.

--Mark Twain

[basil]

Just curious--what state do you have to live in to vote for this guy?

[SEA]

BTTT

[rightwing2]

This guy sounds good to me. My Congressman Tom Davis has never met a liberal policy position that he didn't like. However as a member of the Fairfax County Republican Committee, I signed a pledge that I would note vote for anyone other than Republicans. Accordingly, my most likely course of action is to leave my vote for House of Reps blank on election day.

[alpowolf]

As the consequence of this logic, I do not oppose in principle the right of the sovereign states to enact any gun control legislation they are able to gather a majority behind, unless, of course, the constitution of a state mirrors the Second Amendment's guarantee

But if this is so, it wouldn't be restricted to the 2nd Amendment. By this logic a majority in a state could take all rights away. This would completely negate the BOR...the fact that the person arresting or shooting me was wearing a state uniform instead of a national one would hardly matter.

[Shooter 2.5]

"It is critically important for supporters of the Second Amendment to be clear on these matters. It was a great injury to our cause a couple of decades ago when the National Rifle Association joined in the effort to strike down the gun ordinance of Morton Grove, IL. "

Unless, of course, you happened to live there and other cities started the same thing. The lack of courage of the Supreme Court was the fall of the Second Amendment. All they had to do was strike down the ban and all of the other attempts by the anti-gunners would never have happened. It's not like crime ever dropped during the time the anti's kept passing the laws.

[MissAmericanPie]

I like your Dad already.