District Court in NYC upholds unconstitutional gun law

Socrtease said:
Except that in this case they will rely on Stare Decisis to say that the 2d applies through the 14th, much as it pains them. ;)
Click to expand...
See my above post and tell me what you think. Article IV would apply, since it is an individual right would it not? Because each individual is entitled to their rights in all of the states per that article, if this is an individual right as ruled it would have to apply to the individual and could not be curtailed by the states.
 
Dungheap said:
Que? Not sure to what you are referring here.

The 2nd Amendment, like several others, remains unincorporated. Heller did not change that.
Click to expand...

Why shouldn't the 2nd amendment be incorporated like all the other amendments? What's so special about it that warrants that it remain unincorporated so that states can violate it?

The 14th amendment incorporated all rights. If you think it would be beneficial to the nation that states could violate the individual right in the 2nd amendment, you are free to amend the constitution.
 
Damocles said:
Then explain. It is inane to say that it is a protected individual right that the states can take from you. If it is protected as an individual right then the states have no right to take it from you.
Click to expand...

Before the 14th amendment that states could take any right from you. But it's later been interpreted that states can't take any of the rights from you, just like the feds can't.

Which is actually ironic, because the gun nuts claim to be the voice of the founders, and the founders thought nothing of the sort. Regardless, the idea that the 2nd amendment limits the action of individual state has sound legal theory behind it.
 
Dungheap said:
The Bill of Rights as originally drafted applied only to the Federal government and did not serve as a limitation on the powers of state and local governments. Most provisions of the Bill of Rights have been held to apply to constrain the powers of state and local governments through the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment.

The Second Amendment is one of several that has not been "incorporated" through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and therefore has not been held to apply to constrain state and local government action.

It may be inane, but any originalist or strict constructionist will tell you that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

Why isn't it incorporated?

The only reason there seems to be, to me, is that there haven't been many cases brought up about it after incorporation became a widespread legal doctrine.
 
Damocles said:
See my above post and tell me what you think. Article IV would apply, since it is an individual right would it not? Because each individual is entitled to their rights in all of the states per that article, if this is an individual right as ruled it would have to apply to the individual and could not be curtailed by the states.
Click to expand...


Please, pretty please, just trust me on this one. The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states absent incorporation through the 14th Amendment.

Or, if you don't trust me, you could try one of many sources available online that speak to this issue.
 
Damocles said:
Article IV of the constitution already states that every citizen is entitled to their rights in the several states. Therefore if this is an individual right the states cannot infringe on their entitlement per Article IV regardless of Article 14 incorporation.
Click to expand...

Damo, the full faith and credit clause has absolutely nothing to do with this. Article IV was written before the bill of rights and it's silly and absurd of you to claim that it incorporates them.
 
Damocles said:
See my above post and tell me what you think. Article IV would apply, since it is an individual right would it not? Because each individual is entitled to their rights in all of the states per that article, if this is an individual right as ruled it would have to apply to the individual and could not be curtailed by the states.
Click to expand...

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.




Nothing to do with what you said. And none of the other sections even come remotely close.
 
Dungheap said:
Please, pretty please, just trust me on this one. The Bill of Rights does not apply to the states absent incorporation through the 14th Amendment.

Or, if you don't trust me, you could try one of many sources available online that speak to this issue.
Click to expand...
If and until the SCOTUS takes up the case.

I believe that you are wrong, for the reason I stated. This has been argued consistently on both sides for longer than you and I have existed. This is the first time the SCOTUS ever took up a case.

This issue has never been as concrete as you pretend it is here. This has been argued by judges and others practically since inception without a ruling by the SCOTUS. Finally we have the beginning.
 
Watermark said:
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.




Nothing to do with what you said. And none of the other sections even come remotely close.
Click to expand...
Read all of Article IV, spaz.

It is this part I am speaking of:

"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
 
Watermark said:
That just means that one state can't treat citizens from other states differently.
Click to expand...
It also means that they are entitled to their Privileges (read: rights) as they are in the several states.

The phrase stands alone for a reason. While there was a question of "collective v. individual" there was an argument, but I don't believe that an Individual right can be curtailed by the states. All rights not given to the Feds were either the States (collective) or to the Individual. Amendment X does that for us. In this case it would be an individual right and therefore not given to subjugation by the State.
 
Damocles said:
It also means that they are entitled to their Privileges (read: rights) as they are in the several states.

The phrase stands alone for a reason. While there was a question of "collective v. individual" there was an argument, but I don't believe that an Individual right can be curtailed by the states. All rights not given to the Feds were either the States (collective) or to the Individual. Amendment X does that for us. In this case it would be an individual right and therefore not given to subjugation by the State.
Click to expand...

No Damo, article IV has absolutely nothing to do with the bill of rights.
 
Watermark said:
No Damo, article IV has absolutely nothing to do with the bill of rights.
Click to expand...
Duh.

Article IV has to do with State powers. The state cannot curtail the individual rights you have in the several states.

Amendment X has to do with where rights lie. In this case the SCOTUS ruled that this one lies with the Individual, therefore ruling that it is not a right of the State.

I believe that this ruling is far more reaching than DH wants us to believe, he also suggests a more concrete and substantial belief in law that the right was not afforded to the individual in this way while ignoring that lawyers and judges have been arguing this for more than a Century. This right has been argued substantially practically since inception, stating that there was some concrete and solid interpretation is simply wrong.
 
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states through the process and doctrine of incorporation. Therefore, as to most, but not all, provisions of the Bill of Rights, Barron and its progenny have been circumvented, if not actually overruled.
Click to expand...

From your wiki article.

However, Amendment X specifically states that all rights not afforded the Federal Government were either the States or that of the Individual. Ruling that the right belongs to an individual removes it from the other.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

By actually ruling it an individual right, this Amendment would apply. It would be a right of the people, not of the state.
 
Damocles said:
From your wiki article.

However, Amendment X specifically states that all rights not afforded the Federal Government were either the States or that of the Individual. Ruling that the right belongs to an individual removes it from the other.
Click to expand...

States rights are completely different from individual rights, Damo. You are comparing apples to oranges and falsely equivalizing things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top