If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
This looks interesting.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/history-lesson-on-2nd-amendments-reach/
This chicago ruling may have a much larger reach than the 2A.
Wow, I didn't expect Gura to go quite so whole hog in the P&I direction. I kept reading the extensive documentation on the history of P&I, and wondered when he'd get to the backup plan of the due process clause. If it works, this is going to be one hell of a landmark case.
Maybe I'm a little off here, but my basic belief in regards to Constitutional law was that the states are allowed to pass any laws as long as they do not violate the rights of the people as enumerated in The Constitution.
I'm just baffled that something so clearly written in The Constitution is up for debate.
Yes, there need to be certain "reasonable" restrictions (felons, mentally ill), but not to the level many states (ahem, Massachusetts) restrict legal firearms ownership.
Maybe I'm a little off here, but my basic belief in regards to Constitutional law was that the states are allowed to pass any laws as long as they do not violate the rights of the people as enumerated in The Constitution.
I'm guessing my belief is wishful thinking.
I'm just baffled that something so clearly written in The Constitution is up for debate.
Yes, there need to be certain "reasonable" restrictions (felons, mentally ill), but not to the level many states (ahem, Massachusetts) restrict legal firearms ownership.
Maybe I'm a little off here, but my basic belief in regards to Constitutional law was that the states are allowed to pass any laws as long as they do not violate the rights of the people as enumerated in The Constitution.
I'm guessing my belief is wishful thinking.
Maybe I'm being arrogant but I think the founding fathers screwed up a bit in their choice of words on that one.
I also agree with the reasonable restrictions you enumerated in your post.
Wasn't the second amendment based upon the Mass Constitution?
How the heck did we get here? (that's a rhetorical question!)
David
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
Well, we did fight a war over state's rights and their ability to override federal laws. Some people, even gun owners, think they should still be able to. At a fundamental level, incorporation is incompatible with state's rights.
Personally, I would prefer that, at least the original, Bill of Rights was fully incorporated against the states. I also agree with the reasonable restrictions you enumerated in your post.
Well, we did fight a war over state's rights and their ability to override federal laws. Some people, even gun owners, think they should still be able to. At a fundamental level, incorporation is incompatible with state's rights.
Personally, I would prefer that, at least the original, Bill of Rights was fully incorporated against the states. I also agree with the reasonable restrictions you enumerated in your post.
I beg to differ. The rights identified and enumerated in the BoR (which was NOT to the exclusion of others) are INHERENT; i.e., "natural" rights. If the Federal government cannot lawfully transgress upon them, under what possible precept can a mere state? A state which inherently subordinated its scope of authority when it ratified the Constitution AND the BoR?
Which is, of course, the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment and the legislators who enacted it.
By saying "mere state", I have to interpret that as meaning states are and always have been considered as subordinate to the federal government. That has not always been the case as considered by many people (like the south for instance).
As I said, I'm just pointing out that stance. I'm not saying I agree with it.
One point: All of the rights enumerated in the first ten amendments are not natural rights. Some are, and some are not.
I beg to differ. The rights identified and enumerated in the BoR (which was NOT to the exclusion of others) are INHERENT; i.e., "natural" rights. If the Federal government cannot lawfully transgress upon them, under what possible precept can a mere state? A state which inherently subordinated its scope of authority when it ratified the Constitution AND the BoR?
Yes, there need to be certain "reasonable" restrictions (felons, mentally ill)
Understood. The states do still have rights - or DID, until they whored themselves out to get Federal subsidies.
However, the creation of the Federal government inherently required the abandonment of what had been state rights because the states were no longer sovereign. They no longer have the right to create their own currency, effect foreign policy, levy import/export duties; neither can they impede interstate commerce.
What the South's ultimate - and correct - argument was and is can be simply stated: The states entered into a contract and retain(ed) the right to withdraw from it.
I challenge anyone to find anything in the Constitution which holds otherwise.
Um, yes, they are the natural born rights of all people, well, at least the founders said so, and since they wrote that lovely little document I'm going to side with them.
Says who? I'm with grant, in favor of the free=unrestricted rights, in jail/mental institution=restricted rights. Anything else is just wishful thinking on the part of people coming up with these laws. If you're out breathing the free air you can get a gun if you want, guaranteed.
Sorry, I have an issue with some one who just got out of the klink on a violent felony charge owning a fire arm legally.
Sorry, I have an issue with some one who just got out of the klink on a violent felony charge owning a fire arm legally.
Here's what the MA constitution says:
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
So, the legislature has the power to regulate our ability to keep and bear arms and that right is subordinate to the government.
I don't see how the wording of the 2A reflects the ideas set forth in the MA constitution. In fact, so far as I can tell, the MA legislature (as sucky as they are) is doing exactly what our constitution allows them to do.