Conservative think tank on the Supreme Court's upcoming DC gun ban case
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
Socrtease
Verified User
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 States cannot overturn a right guaranteed to individuals.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
link to the case decision please
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
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:
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:
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The case is irrelevant because the decision was 40 years before the 14th ammendment was passed.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
There is no right to unfettered killing devices access.
There is a right to the individual to own and bear arms.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
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 If the second ammendment is distorted to provide unfettered killing devices access everywhere, it should be repealed.
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.
The first part of the amendment is the reason, the second part the right, as in all of those Amendments. They were very clear. So, while NYC might make it difficult, you have a right to own arms in NYC. Whether you believe in the Castle Doctrine or not.
Therefore they have laws banning legal ownership of certain arms, but they can't take your right to own arms away from you.
The reality is, you do have that right. And even with it NYC hasn't become a "killing field".
Uhh, 14th Amendment.
The court was wrong. Debates on the 14th make it clear that ther rkba was a major reason for the 14th.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Debates on the 14th ammendment make it clear that the 2nd isn't incorporated.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Why are we letting black robed tyrants thwart the will of the people and their legislature?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
define 'shall not be infringed' please.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so what you're really trying to say is that you feel certain urban areas should be able to just dismiss the constitution and bill of rights as 'inconvenient' for it's agenda. Do I have that correct?
You are wrong and offer no support for your assertion. From the link I provided...
Howard introduced the proposed amendment in the Senate on behalf of the Joint Committee, explaining "the views and motives which influenced that Committee."[114] After acknowledging the important role of the testimony before the Joint Committee, Howard referred to "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press;. .. the right to keep and bear arms"[115] (emphasis added). Howard averred: "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees"[116] (emphasis added).
In the ensuing debate, no one questioned Howard's premise that the Amendment made the first eight amendments applicable to the states.[117] Howard explained that Congress could enforce the Bill of Rights through the Enforcement Clause, "a direct affirmative delegation of power to Congress to carry out all the principles of all these guarantees."[118] Howard added: "It [the amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who happen to be within their jurisdiction."[119]
Let me correct so it says what you really mean water...
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 areas where there are large numbers of blacks, puerto ricans and other immigrants. 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.
...
The proponents of the 14th sought to stop the disarmament of minorities and the infringment of other rights.
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 areas where there are large numbers of blacks, puerto ricans and other immigrants. 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.
...
The proponents of the 14th sought to stop the disarmament of minorities and the infringment of other rights.
Little-Acorn
New member
The 2nd amendment has never needed to be "incorporated", except in the minds of those who wish it didn't already apply to all governments as it is written. Including some dreamers on the Supreme Court. The 2nd already WAS "incorporated" by its own original language - something not true for all amendments.
Different amendments are aimed at different levels of government, according to their plain text. Surprising how many people ignore that fact.
The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law...." and then goes on to name a number of things Congress is forbidden to interfere with. It carefully did not say that states were prohibited from affecting those things. That amendment was clearly aimed at the Federal govt only when it was written.
Later the 14th was written, and said that states can't deny their citizens the privileges and immunitites protected by the Constitution. Hence the "incorporation" of some more-narrowly targeted amendments like the 1st.
But when the 2nd was written, it's was not restricted to just the Fed govt like the 1st was. It simply said that since militias were needed, the right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted. Period. That meant, by ANY government - Fed, state, local etc. The 2nd was clearly "incorporated" already by its plain language, where the 1st clearly was not.
Only after the 14th was written did the one-size-fits-all weenies start pushing the idea that NONE of the amendments were "incorporated" - a clearly false premise for some of them. It was also useful to fabricate a "loophole" by which the anti-gun-rights people could pretend the 2nd only applied to the Fed, despite its clearly inclusive language.
Did the 1st amendment need to be incorporated? Maybe, though that tended to change its original purpose (leaving states free to have official state religions, for example, which many states did when the BOR was ratified - a situation no longer true). And the 14th *is* part of the Constitution now, so incorporation technically happened the instant it was ratified. It's just taking the Courts etc. a while to catch up.
Did the 2nd amendment need to be incorporated? Simply, no. It already was. Unlike its effect on the 1st amendment, the 14th changes nothing WRT the 2nd. Again, it's merely taking the Courts (and the gun-rights-haters) a while to catch up.
Different amendments are aimed at different levels of government, according to their plain text. Surprising how many people ignore that fact.
The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law...." and then goes on to name a number of things Congress is forbidden to interfere with. It carefully did not say that states were prohibited from affecting those things. That amendment was clearly aimed at the Federal govt only when it was written.
Later the 14th was written, and said that states can't deny their citizens the privileges and immunitites protected by the Constitution. Hence the "incorporation" of some more-narrowly targeted amendments like the 1st.
But when the 2nd was written, it's was not restricted to just the Fed govt like the 1st was. It simply said that since militias were needed, the right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted. Period. That meant, by ANY government - Fed, state, local etc. The 2nd was clearly "incorporated" already by its plain language, where the 1st clearly was not.
Only after the 14th was written did the one-size-fits-all weenies start pushing the idea that NONE of the amendments were "incorporated" - a clearly false premise for some of them. It was also useful to fabricate a "loophole" by which the anti-gun-rights people could pretend the 2nd only applied to the Fed, despite its clearly inclusive language.
Did the 1st amendment need to be incorporated? Maybe, though that tended to change its original purpose (leaving states free to have official state religions, for example, which many states did when the BOR was ratified - a situation no longer true). And the 14th *is* part of the Constitution now, so incorporation technically happened the instant it was ratified. It's just taking the Courts etc. a while to catch up.
Did the 2nd amendment need to be incorporated? Simply, no. It already was. Unlike its effect on the 1st amendment, the 14th changes nothing WRT the 2nd. Again, it's merely taking the Courts (and the gun-rights-haters) a while to catch up.
Last edited: