Supreme Court extends gun rights to all 50 states

[bkg]

I really don't understand where you are coming from now, and I explained already my comments on the mention of Congress.   

You know believe that  2nd amendment, because our forefathers did not specifically mention Congress, applies to the states?     

Never said that. I pointed out early on when we switched to talking about the 1st that it specifically addresses congress. They were very deliberate about that. Hence my point that it doesn't address or limit any state activity.

The second amendment names no specific entity. You're argument is that because it doesn't address a specific entity, then it applies to the states. But then you've also asserted that the 1st applies to the states even though it specifically addresses congress. Just pointing out that you can't argue both.

I still think it was a very important decision that helps shift the power to the citizen, which is critical. I still assert that there was some mis application. I've also stated planely that many decisions are incorrect coming out of SCOTUS. This is the most recent and therefore a good one to disect.

[bkg]

Interesting notation --

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/018.pdf


Madison's intent quite clear.   Very interesting -- when I have time this evening I will read the decision of Barron v Baltimore to get some feeling on this further.   That said, this document goes on to state that the 14th amendment extends this to the states.     

Lots more to read.

Bill of Rights and the States.—One of the amendments which the Senate refused to accept—declared by Madison to be ‘‘the most valuable of the whole list’’ 12 —read: ‘‘The equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of the press, and the right of trial by jury in criminal cases shall not be infringed by any State.’’ 13 In spite of this rejection, the contention that the Bill of Rights—or at least the first eight—was applicable to the States was repeatedly
pressed upon the Supreme Court. By a long series of decisions, beginning with the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in Barron v. Baltimore, 14 the argument was consistently rejected. Nevertheless, the enduring vitality of natural law concepts encouraged renewed appeals for judicial protection through application of the Bill of Rights. 15

Very interesting indeed. This seems to support my assertion that clarity of language is key, and the founders knew that. The question is if the above was rejected because it limited states power?

Again, I'm making a disctinction between the intent and the interpetation by SCOTUS... I think a originalist interpretation would be different than how SCOTUS has elected to.... enforce.

[bkg]

Dear bkg,

The Constitution and Bill of Rights was ratified by the states as a whole, not piecemeal as with the 11th and subsequent amendments.

Understand that and your point further supports my position. Pull the 11th and later out - for the sake of discussion - and tell me what the intention was of the fully radified COTUS. At that time, which is why I keyed in on the order of passage as important, the 14th didn't exist, and the meaning different. Only after you apply the following amendments does the meaning and/or application of the previous amendments change. And it begs one question - if they really wanted the 1st to apply to the states, why not amend the 1st to include the states AND congress?

At the end of the day, it's an interesting exercise. And frankly an important one. Both the left and the right twist COTUS to mean what they want when it benefits them. The question is if anyone - anyone at all - could be happy with the most strict interpretation. I'm not sure I would. Then again, I'm a bit of a purist and think I would find an uber strict interpretation easier to live under - would be more predictable.

[formerlurker]

Very interesting indeed. This seems to support my assertion that clarity of language is key, and the founders knew that. The question is if the above was rejected because it limited states power?

Again, I'm making a disctinction between the intent and the interpetation by SCOTUS... I think a originalist interpretation would be different than how SCOTUS has elected to.... enforce.

It does support your assertion.   I want to read the SCOTUS case mentioned before commenting further though.   

[Carl]

Never said that. I pointed out early on when we switched to talking about the 1st that it specifically addresses congress. They were very deliberate about that. Hence my point that it doesn't address or limit any state activity.

The second amendment names no specific entity. You're argument is that because it doesn't address a specific entity, then it applies to the states. But then you've also asserted that the 1st applies to the states even though it specifically addresses congress. Just pointing out that you can't argue both.

I still think it was a very important decision that helps shift the power to the citizen, which is critical. I still assert that there was some mis application. I've also stated planely that many decisions are incorrect coming out of SCOTUS. This is the most recent and therefore a good one to disect.

You are all over the board here and I am now even more confused as to where you stand.

Except that the 2nd applies to Congress... Technically not the states. The COTUS' job was to ensure the other two branches of the fed gov't were in check, not the states.

Still think it's a win, just think it "technically" may be argued as a bad ruling.

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,45773.msg502865.html#msg502865

My question in response..

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,45773.msg502886.html#msg502886

With your reply.

The entire COTUS applies to the feds... States were free to do as they seemed fit. That was teh original design/intent.

The ruling is still a win.

http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,45773.msg502947.html#msg502947

   

A later question.

I have no idea what you are trying to say with what in my opinion is an obtuse statement.
Are you saying flat out that since the word Congress was used in the first amendment it means that states are free to make laws that do not follow the Bill of Rights,my examples being used.

It is a yes or no question.

What use is the Constitution at that point for anything or the value of ratifying it and entering into the Union?
I have no idea what you are trying to say with what in my opinion is an obtuse statement.
Are you saying flat out that since the word Congress was used in the first amendment it means that states are free to make laws that do not follow the Bill of Rights,my examples being used.

It is a yes or no question.

What use is the Constitution at that point for anything or the value of ratifying it and entering into the Union?

.

Your answer.

Yes.

What use is the Constitution at that point for anything or the value of ratifying it and entering into the Union?

COTUS was designed to keep the Fed gov't in check. That was the EXACT reason for entering into the union - the guarantee (well, in theory) of freedom for the states.
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,45773.msg503430.html#msg503430

The first amendment was brought up by me as a question as to why you said originally the second only applies to Congress.

Just trying to figure out where we are at here.

[Carl]

Understand that and your point further supports my position. Pull the 11th and later out - for the sake of discussion - and tell me what the intention was of the fully radified COTUS. At that time, which is why I keyed in on the order of passage as important, the 14th didn't exist, and the meaning different. Only after you apply the following amendments does the meaning and/or application of the previous amendments change. And it begs one question - if they really wanted the 1st to apply to the states, why not amend the 1st to include the states AND congress?

At the end of the day, it's an interesting exercise. And frankly an important one. Both the left and the right twist COTUS to mean what they want when it benefits them. The question is if anyone - anyone at all - could be happy with the most strict interpretation. I'm not sure I would. Then again, I'm a bit of a purist and think I would find an uber strict interpretation easier to live under - would be more predictable.

In the lead up to the Civil War the government viewed secesion to be illegal but was not sure how to stop it.
Lincoln took the view that it was illegal and the power granted the executive was needed to stop it...war ensued.

As most amendments after the Bill of Rights the 14th was one of several to address an issue that perhaps was assumed but not clarified.

The entire population should have great respect for the writers of the Constitution given the time it was constructed and an interesting discussion could be had as to how they would word it today if brought back and could view the 200+ years of existence.

I honestly don`t believe they would greatly alter it however they likely would word it differently.

[memorybomber]

The Supreme Court struck down Chicago's ban on hand guns today and extended the reach of the 2nd Amendment as a nationwide protection against laws that infringe the "right to keep and bear arms."

The 5-4 decision voids the 1982 ordinance, one of the nation's strictest, which barred city residents from having handguns for their own use, even at home. The ruling has both local and national implications.

Two years ago, the high court ruled in a case from Washington, D.C. that the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of individuals to have a gun for self-defense. Since the District is a federal city and not a state, the court did not decide then whether the 2nd Amendment could be used to challenge other municipal ordinances or state laws.
In today's decision, the court said the constitutional protection of the 2nd Amendment extends to city and state laws, not just federal measures.

Much more at LINK

This is the greatest news to come out of the high court in a long time. Let's hope they don't go right back on it in a few years.

[rich_t]

BKG...

Let's see if I have your assertions correct.

You think that the entire BoR as originally written applies only to the federal government and that the state governments can do whatever the hell they want regardless of the COTUS?

They, the states, can for instance establish a mandated state religion?

Oh, and for the record your argument that the number of the amemdment sets some sort of priority is utter bullshit.

Allow me to provide an example:

Article the first [Not Ratified]

After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.


Article the second [Amendment XXVII - Ratified 1992]

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.


Note how the 1st article of the BoR as originally penned has never been ratified and that the 2nd article wasn't ratified until 1992? 

[formerlurker]

In the lead up to the Civil War the government viewed secesion to be illegal but was not sure how to stop it.
Lincoln took the view that it was illegal and the power granted the executive was needed to stop it...war ensued.

As most amendments after the Bill of Rights the 14th was one of several to address an issue that perhaps was assumed but not clarified.

The entire population should have great respect for the writers of the Constitution given the time it was constructed and an interesting discussion could be had as to how they would word it today if brought back and could view the 200+ years of existence.

I honestly don`t believe they would greatly alter it however they likely would word it differently.

Agreed.   

[formerlurker]

Carl -- the Barron v Baltimore case is a perfect example as to why the 14th Amendment was necessary.  It is a case the libertarians would lose their utopian minds over:

We are of opinion that the provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the [p251] Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the general assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause, in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States. This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and it is dismissed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0032_0243_ZO.html

The feds can't take your commercial property, but the state can and if you don't like it then move. 


Thanks for playing kids, enjoy the buffet...........

[bkg]

BKG...

Let's see if I have your assertions correct.

You think that the entire BoR as originally written applies only to the federal government and that the state governments can do whatever the hell they want regardless of the COTUS?

You're putting words in my mouth with the second 1/2 of that statement. Yes, as originally written, COTUS applied to the Fed gov't.

They, the states, can for instance establish a mandated state religion?

What does the 1st say? It says "CONGRESS"... makes no reference to the states. My question has been - why is that? My assertion has been that the original goal of the amendments was to keep the federal gov't in check and provide freedom to the states. Yes, I said that.

In the position that I am chosing to take, the strict interpretation of the 1st would allow the states to set a religion - yes. Yes, I just said that.

That was the beauty of a Republic!

Oh, and for the record your argument that the number of the amemdment sets some sort of priority is utter bullshit.

You're taking it completely out of context. There is no logical ability to state that prior to the 14th, the COTUS assumed the existence of the 14th. So the amendments that were, modified, if you will, by later amendments could NOT have assumed the later amendment. For anyone to say otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

Your example once again supports my point.

[bkg]

In the lead up to the Civil War the government viewed secesion to be illegal but was not sure how to stop it.
Lincoln took the view that it was illegal and the power granted the executive was needed to stop it...war ensued.

As most amendments after the Bill of Rights the 14th was one of several to address an issue that perhaps was assumed but not clarified.

This is similar to my point.

The entire population should have great respect for the writers of the Constitution given the time it was constructed and an interesting discussion could be had as to how they would word it today if brought back and could view the 200+ years of existence.

I honestly don`t believe they would greatly alter it however they likely would word it differently.

They definitely would have worded it stronger... h

[Carl]

Carl -- the Barron v Baltimore case is a perfect example as to why the 14th Amendment was necessary.  It is a case the libertarians would lose their utopian minds over:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0032_0243_ZO.html

The feds can't take your commercial property, but the state can and if you don't like it then move. 


Thanks for playing kids, enjoy the buffet...........

Startling but must be taken in the context of the time which also considered slavery to be legitimate.
In moving or growing past those feelings those that revered the document changed it as it was spelled out in its words,that is and always has been the correct way.

A court by decree finding a hidden right to privacy that only extends to abortion is not,an amendment to the Constitution declaring that the right to life is not applied to the unborn would have been the proper way and by its wording would have likely doomed it to failure.

[Carl]

This is similar to my point.

They definitely would have worded it stronger... h

Once it is changed by the process spelled out it is changed for good unless a subsequent amendment rescinds it,again as in prohibition.

You have seemingly contradicted yourself a couple of times here as per the posts I linked to so is difficult to know what viewpoint I am addressing.

Lets for the sake of it assume that the states were terrified of a tyrannical federal government so demanded the Bill of Rights to protect themselves.
Can it be logically assumed that they wished as Rich said to be able to establish a religion on their own?
No one can know other then by writings of the time but think it wasn`t likely that is the reason for the amendment.

Good faith and dealing with the issues of the day in the late 1700s did leave some vagueness and as was pointed out the Civil War was eventually the result.
Not going to re fight that as doing so is one of the most pointless exercises I can imagine but following the rejoined union addressed the things that led to it.

That doesn`t make it the liberals notion of a living document that can say whatever one wants it to on a given day but a flexible one that can adapt and change within a strict construct and process.