Replies

Incorporation" is not my "red herring". Until USSC changes it's mind, Cruikshank remains the law of the land and the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

Please understand, I'm not advocating the theory of "incorporation". I'm only stating the current interpretation of the law.
-DD-

Why do you support 'cruikshank'? It's an unreasoned, almost throwaway line in a long decision, accepting the RKBA's as an inalienable right, but denying the 2nd, --- as attempt to buttress the 'states rights' position on civil rights for blacks. - Your quote proves my point:

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

This antiquated view of gun/civil rights was being used at the time to justify 'Jim Crow' laws in southern states, and has been well discredited since.
Why you fellas still support it is beyond all logic.

Why do you support 'cruikshank'? It's an unreasoned, almost throwaway line in a long decision, accepting the RKBA's as an inalienable right, but denying the 2nd, --- as attempt to buttress the 'states rights' position on civil rights for blacks."

Where, pray tell did I say I "supported" Cruikshank? Despite your (and my) opinion Cruikshank remains the law of the land until overturned. You (and I) may not like that, but neither of us serve on USSC. Don't you understand that I can state the law without rendering an opinion on the law?

Of course, Cruikshank would be overturned should USSC revisit that case, but the fact remains USSC has not done so. BTW, I love using the language from Cruikshank in arguing with gun controlists. It puts them in the position of trying to simultaneously supporting unequal rights for blacks while supporting gun control. Lots of fun.

"This antiquated view of gun/civil rights was being used at the time to justify 'Jim Crow' laws in southern states, and has been well discredited since. "

True, but the whole idea of "incorporation" has caused untold misery for conservatives since it has formed the basis of much litigation at the state and local level and interference with issues that are more properly handled at those levels. You cannot, at the same time, be in favor of limited federal government and also be in favor of "incorporation".

Do you see that ardent supporters of RKBA are being inconsistent with conservative principles when they call for "incorporation" of the 2nd?