Replies

I am of the old school "original intent" belief that the U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government, and to the states only in those instances where the states are mentioned. IMHO, no one, not even the Supreme Court, has the right to re-interpret the Constitution in order to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. If anti-gun laws in California are deemed by the public to be wrong, the battle should be fought in California, not at the federal level.

On the other hand, I am also of the opinion that state governments can and should be limited to what the state constitution says. If the state constitution does not specifically allow the government of California to regulate firearms, then the government of California has no authority to infringe upon that individual right. That would be in keeping with the idea behind a constitutional form of government in all 50 free and independent states.

Let it be known that I am more pro-gun than most NRA members. I believe citizens should be able to carry any kind of gun they want anywhere they want. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I hold the federal government partly responsible for the 9/11 attacks because it was federal regulations that barred pilots and passengers from being able to protect themselves on board those hijacked planes. I despise the NRA leadership for ever caving in to public pressure by saying things like, "Okay, this is a gun law we can live with." Virtually every single federal gun law is unconstitutional on its face.

As a firm believer in the right of states to govern themselves, I think it should be up to the people of a particular state--voicing their positions through their elected representatives in the legislature--to decide whether or not they want gun control. If anyone in California would like to protest a gun-control law, they could appeal to Article I, Sec. 1 of the state constitution, which states, "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." It would seem that laws infringing on gun ownership would violate the "defending life and liberty" clause.

If the people give up their arms and their rights to them ... then all of the eloquent talk in the world will be just that ... talk.

Those with the arms will rule.

This fact, along with the grace of God, is why the American people have been their own government for so long. They are armed and the would-be tyrants MUST respect that ... or find a way to do away with it. If we allow them to do this ... if we give it up, we will lose this power and this government.

I, for one, will not give it up.

I like that argument a lot better than the piecemeal approach to incorporation that the Court has taken; at least that position is a consistent one.

That being said, I think the government owes it to the people to protect them from state authority. Much of the Bill of Rights is associated with protections in criminal proceedings--4th, 5th, 6th, 8th.

But at the time the Bill of Rights was written, there certainly wasn't a national police force, like the FBI now. Moreover, how many federal criminal trials are there? A few, to be sure, but that number is dwarfed by the number of state criminal trials. That is especially true during the time in which the Bill of Rights was written.

All that being said, I think all of this means that the power of the constitution must extend to the states, for otherwise, what would have been the purpose of these amendments when they were written? It just seems to make sense to me, plus it smacks of a fundamental issue of "fairness."

That being said, though, I like your position more than the one the Court has chosen to adopt.

I am of the old school "original intent" belief that the U.S. Constitution applies to the federal government, and to the states only in those instances where the states are mentioned. IMHO, no one, not even the Supreme Court, has the right to re-interpret the Constitution in order to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

Except by the Constitutional ammendment process, which was what happened with the passage of the 14th amendment. Some judges and Justices, especially those from the old Confederacy didn't like that and for years pretended that it didn't mean what says, and what its authors and ratifiers understood it to mean. Even now they hide behind the "due process" clause, to that only rights they approve of are "incorporated", while still ignoring the "priveledges and immunities" clause, which, by the words of its authors and ratifiers, applies the protections of the Bill of Rights to the state governments.

It would seem that laws infringing on gun ownership would violate the "defending life and liberty" clause.

And the "protecting property". Most states are too far gone into touchy feely land to allow protection of property via deadly force, but some are not, like Texas, at least under many conditions.