Kamala Trump
Verified User
The bills of rights does not apply to the states? What?
Baron v. Baltimore said the bill of rights only applied to the feds. It has only been through litigation on individual rights that the Supreme Court has said that many of them do.The bills of rights does not apply to the states? What?
The States cannot overturn a right guaranteed to individuals.Baron v. Baltimore said the bill of rights only applied to the feds. It has only been through litigation on individual rights that the Supreme Court has said that many of them do.
Baron v. Baltimore (1825): The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. However, the Court could incorporate the 2nd Amendment in its decision. The decision itself has never been struck down entirely, but has been slowly eroded over time.
link to the case decision please
The States cannot overturn a right guaranteed to individuals.
There is a right to the individual to own and bear arms.There is no right to unfettered killing devices access.
There is a right to the individual to own and bear arms.
Those laws appear to be unconstitutional. The right to the individual "shall not be infringed". According to law "shall" means that laws simply cannot be passed that allow you to have no arms whatsoever.As long as the state or municipality involved doesn't decide it's in its best interest.
Imagine if we had handguns and a castle doctirine in apartments in New York. It would be a slaughterhouse. Even if someone did shoot the unarmed burglar they'd kill 10 other people in the process. There are reasons for some laws in some areas and I'd prefer you not ignorantly force states to adopt statutes that are not appropriate for their area. If the second ammendment is distorted to provide unfettered killing devices access everywhere, it should be repealed.
Baron v. Baltimore (1825): The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. However, the Court could incorporate the 2nd Amendment in its decision. The decision itself has never been struck down entirely, but has been slowly eroded over time.
Baron vs. Baltimore was before the 14th ammendment, which provided the only real legal basis for incorporating the bill of rights. However, there was a case after the 14th ammendment which found that the 2nd wasn't something that should be incorporated. Most of the supreme justices who have believed in incorporation didn't believe that literally the whole document should be incoporated.
US vs. Cruikshank is the most recent ruling on the second ammendment, in 1875, and it found that it didn't apply to the states:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
And here's another:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois
And here's another:
The court was wrong. Debates on the 14th make it clear that ther rkba was a major reason for the 14th.
Why are we letting black robed tyrants thwart the will of the people and their legislature?Baron vs. Baltimore was before the 14th ammendment, which provided the only real legal basis for incorporating the bill of rights. However, there was a case after the 14th ammendment which found that the 2nd wasn't something that should be incorporated. Most of the supreme justices who have believed in incorporation didn't believe that literally the whole document should be incoporated.
There is no right to unfettered killing devices access.
As long as the state or municipality involved doesn't decide it's in its best interest.
Imagine if we had handguns and a castle doctirine in apartments in New York. It would be a slaughterhouse. Even if someone did shoot the unarmed burglar they'd kill 10 other people in the process. There are reasons for some laws in some areas and I'd prefer you not ignorantly force states to adopt statutes that are not appropriate for their area. If the second ammendment is distorted to provide unfettered killing devices access everywhere, it should be repealed.
Debates on the 14th ammendment make it clear that the 2nd isn't incorporated.